Kay 17:
Also, for God to be the uncaused cause, he has to be the most basic and simplest entity, thereby stripping/preventing him from exhibiting a complex personality and self. In order words, the building blocks of existence.

I do not know how you make this leap. Why does an uncaused cause have to be simple or basic?

caezar:

You forget that game of life was programmed that way!

No I don't. It's why I say naturally evolved. Particle bounce against paricle against particle... Eventually a pattern is formed. All that would be required would be energy (with its both wave-like and particle-like properties, agaiin, in this universe), with certain 'self existant' properties ( just like if you have something that has always existed, its effects would have always existed, in this case the effects would be the properties). It does not require an intelligent programmer. It seems to require a hell of a lot of time though, in this universe ie. Pre-big ban.g is just speculation (just pointing that out there for clarity's sake).

Btw iirc the galaxy-sized collider is what some think would be needed to test string theory. More or less to criticize it so basically it's an example of the scientific method, which you have no problem with, at work. No evidence = no science

caezar:

Come on! Are you claiming that you are not a different entity from cow dung? Because, by your above claim, when one entity goes out of existence and another comes into existence as a by product of the first entity, the second entity and the first are still one self-existent entity! Existence and self-existence are different things!

I would rather say transform, not fuzzle out of existence. An existing entity is immutable and personifies indestructible existence yet its ONLY alterable.

Finite time is the more absurd concept. What would be before and after this time? Actually, even that question is absurd as that implies eternal time. Thus can you see how absurd finite time is?

Before and After are inherent qualities of Time, therefore in absence of Time, before, after and Causality can't be discussed. Absolute time on the other hand, implies we wouldn't exist yet, but we obviously do.

These qualities are not unnecessary. They become obvious and necessary once you ponder the full implications of the universe as a perfect black box.

In my view, the Universe is as much self existent as other entities. Therefore assuming the absolute non-existence of the Universe, which in turn necessitates a Creator violates the ex nihilio rule.

caezar:

I do not know how you make this leap. Why does an uncaused cause have to be simple or basic?

That is because the quality of being an effect is complexity, a part upon another part. I see Causality possible ONLY in a physcial world.

Deep Sight:

As above. That there was already a pre-existent trigger for such a happening. Obviously.

From what I understand from you, God is self existent (pre-existent trigger) and yet the sum total of reality, which invariably means Everything is God, and it would be nonsensical to talk of Everything being outside Everything!!

@caezer
Random, not pertinent to the discussion this post. But from what I read, holding energy in your hand was one of the reasons einstein set off on his quest (can you catch up to light and hold it?). Such musings led him to great discoveries, whiich impact every single one of us, using the scientific method. He, and the rest of the scientific world, could have just left it to 'god', and we wouldn't have e=mc2 and the other nice things science gives us. Anyways, I understand you have no problem with the scientific method, just found it interesting

Deep Sight:

Sorry, you have it all confused. Nothingness does not refer to what you suggest: real nothingness means the absence of the existence of anything whatsoever. Period.

That knocks off the rest of your post, mate.

It astonishes me that you can speak of somethings such as when you refer to an equilibrium state of a pre-universe - - - and then say that this is nothing.

For heaven's sake.

Equilibrium is NOT nothing. The very word connotes balance between existent things.

Please stop messing around nonsensically with words.

You dont seem to get it. You are too quick with the trigger. In my first statement, I acknowledged the problem of defining nothingness. Nothingness in my context simply denotes inertness, sameness,no differentiation, zero flux. I used it just to convey my point.

Deep Sight:
Just to add, so you understand: somethings in nature occur because of a thing yet to occur. That in itself shows that the first "occurrent" thing had a cause: the future "occurrent" thing. A vague and crude example would be a woman developing milk in her breasts for a yet to be born baby. The fact is that the triggers were there for the yet to be born baby. Simples.

Correction, the woman develops milk because she is already pregnant. An event has already occured to trigger pregnancy and the subsequent development of both foetus and her body.She cannot develop milk just by wishing to have a child or just by having sex unless conception occurs.

PhysicsQED:

You impose an eternal external timeline on the universe with no evidence. Why is this idea so necessary for you?

good question

caezar:

I am astounded by your ability to throw out strong scientific concepts and claim that to be science.

You are no match for any awesome.

Ooh, I noticed. I'll need to be smoking some of your stuff to get your awesome.

Edit: no really, scientific concepts, where did I do that? That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while. Are you going to redefine the term 'science'?

Kay 17:

From what I understand from you, God is self existent (pre-existent trigger) and yet the sum total of reality, which invariably means Everything is God, and it would be nonsensical to talk of Everything being outside Everything!!

Yeah, he is sounding like me and yet disagrees with me on same.

In seeking to understand the maker of the Universe, you will meet a dead end, because you seek the wrong thing. But if you seek how the universe was made and the makers of the Universe, then we can be able to deduce the truth from fiction. In essence, the Universe was not made by God, it was made by the Gods, (not gods). Although the gods (humans) have been co-creators by changing Petroleum to PMS and Palm oil to soap etc. There is no one God, there are several of them in the legion and they are the higher intelligence than their creation called man, Humanoids are just an experiment of Gods, we are simply advance sexual clones of the Originals, placed on this earth under their observation and control. In essence, humanoids are lab rats. I need to stop here, until I get express permission to continue revealing this hard truth.

Deep Sight:
It is the very substance of that which is self existent: an element of the ineffable God.

So the void "outside" the universe and "eternity" combine to form "god"? You call it ineffable then give it attributes of being "void" and "eternity".
I personally think, you should just stick to decribing "god" as a possiblity that is ineffable( I do) instead of trying to describe it by presenting ideas that you regard as fact without any evidence but your sentiments.
If a being that can be called a god exists, I think such a being would be incomprehensible to humans unless it makes itself known.

Deep Sight:
And that is the definition of Divinity. The purest and simplest particle of existence

If divinity is a "particle", then it must be physical. Agree?
And why describe something supernatural like the divine in physical terms?
is the "divine particle" just an idealized elementary particle created to support your beliefs or is there a way to see if this particle exists?.................CERN would be interested.

plaetton:

Correction, the woman develops milk because she is already pregnant. An event has already occured to trigger pregnancy and the subsequent development of both foetus and her body.She cannot develop milk just by wishing to have a child or just by having sex unless conception occurs.

Exactly. Which simply conveys the point I was making. Even if an external observer did not know that the woman was pregnant, she actually WAS pregnant. As such, in relation to the Horizon example, even if we cannot observe the pre-trigger, it necessarily must have been there already.

In short, nothing happens by magic.

plaetton:

You dont seem to get it. You are too quick with the trigger. In my first statement, I acknowledged the problem of defining nothingness. Nothingness in my context simply denotes inertness, sameness,no differentiation, zero flux. I used it just to convey my point.

Well find another word, because that is NOT nothingness. In no way whatsoever. You will confuse things in a delicate discussion such as this one, if you use words carelessly. The OP has a specific conception of nothingness with regard to the maxim ex nihilo nihil fit. That definition refers to total nothingness. Therefore in this discussion it will be misleading to begin to use the word "nothingness" to mean "something in equilibrium". . . VERY misleading. Hope you catch my drift.

Martian:

So the void "outside" the universe and "eternity" combine to form "god"? You call it ineffable then give it attributes of being "void" and "eternity".
I personally think, you should just stick to decribing "god" as a possiblity that is ineffable(I do this) instead of trying to describe it by presenting ideas that you regard as fact without any evidence but your sentiments.

But think about it. What else could it be? Really, really think!

If divinity is a "particle", then it must be physical. Agree?
And why describe something supernatural like the divine in physical terms?
is the "divine particle" just an idealized elementary particle created to support your beliefs or is there a way to see if this particle exists?.................CERN would be interested.

Oh no, sorry if I have misled you: I do not use "particle" in the sense that CERN does. I used that word to describe what I perceive to be the fine and most elementary intangible substance which comprises essential reality: and which is the substance of divinity: or God.

Billyonaire: In seeking to understand the maker of the Universe, you will meet a dead end, because you seek the wrong thing. But if you seek how the universe was made and the makers of the Universe, then we can be able to deduce the truth from fiction. In essence, the Universe was not made by God, it was made by the Gods, (not gods). Although the gods (humans) have been co-creators by changing Petroleum to PMS and Palm oil to soap etc. There is no one God, there are several of them in the legion and they are the higher intelligence than their creation called man, Humanoids are just an experiment of Gods, we are simply advance sexual clones of the Originals, placed on this earth under their observation and control. In essence, humanoids are lab rats. I need to stop here, until I get express permission to continue revealing this hard truth.

You Rael?

http://www.rael.org/home

Billyonaire: In seeking to understand the maker of the Universe, you will meet a dead end, because you seek the wrong thing. But if you seek how the universe was made and the makers of the Universe, then we can be able to deduce the truth from fiction. In essence, the Universe was not made by God, it was made by the Gods, (not gods). Although the gods (humans) have been co-creators by changing Petroleum to PMS and Palm oil to soap etc. There is no one God, there are several of them in the legion and they are the higher intelligence than their creation called man, Humanoids are just an experiment of Gods, we are simply advance sexual clones of the Originals, placed on this earth under their observation and control. In essence, humanoids are lab rats. I need to stop here, until I get express permission to continue revealing this hard truth.

Also I need to point out that even the Raelian revelation does nothing to speak of the maker of all things: it rather speaks of already existing humans within this universe who became so advanced that they created we on this planet as an experiment. It also says that their own scientific advancement is only 25, 000 years old. A split-second, considering the age of the universe. So there is more than they know - if at all the revelation is true.

Deep Sight:
But think about it. What else could it be? Really, really think!

It could be a "god". It could be the universe itself as always existed in one form or the other, it could be a universe in sea of universes, it could be the result of the singularity inside a black hole. It could be all of it or none of it. We don't know yet.

Deep Sight:
Oh no, sorry if I have misled you: I do not use "particle" in the sense that CERN does. I used that word to describe what I perceive to be the fine and most elementary intangible substance which comprises essential reality: and which is the substance of divinity: or God.

Ok, it's your perception.

Martian:

It could be a "god".

Could be.

It could be the universe itself as always existed in one form or the other,

Could not be: as we are speaking of what it is expanding into.

it could be a universe in sea of universes,

Could be: I have always subscribed to this: nevertheless they all (universes) would still be existing in a pre-existent space that I speak of.

An infinite space.

it could be the result of the singularity inside a black hole.

All that must needs still exist in a pre existent infinite space.

It could be all of it or none of it. We don't know yet.

Indeed, my brother. Now let me go make some money. Lawyer don turn to trader.

PhysicsQED:

You impose an eternal external timeline on the universe with no evidence. Why is this idea so necessary for you?

In WHAT could it all exist? In nothingness?

Deep Sight:
Could not be: as we are speaking of what it is expanding into.

You object to this one because you can't comprehend it but it doesn't mean that it's impossible. If it's the only one that exists, it might very well be displacing "nothing".

Does "Nothing" include space or is Space itself something in the same sense that matter/energy is something?

Martian: Does "Nothing" include space

I have said it several times that there is no such thing as nothingness. By very definition it is nothing: it does not exist at all.

or is Space itself something in the same sense that matter/energy is something?

Yes infinite space, locked with infinite time, is indeed THE GREAT SOMETHING.

Deep Sight: Exactly. Which simply conveys the point I was making. Even if an external observer did not know that the woman was pregnant, she actually WAS pregnant. As such, in relation to the Horizon example, even if we cannot observe the pre-trigger, it necessarily must have been there already.

No. It's not about observation. The effect that was talked about pertained to absolute horizons, not apparent horizons. The absolute horizon is not observer dependent. The point is the "effect" (growth in size) occurs temporally before (when looking at time in the "forward" direction) the "cause" (increase in the mass of the black hole (and consequently, its gravitational pull)). This makes it seem as though the horizon was "anticipating" the increase in mass of the black hole from swallowing up the matter.

The existence of a "trigger" is not being denied of course, as I said earlier.

Deep Sight: In WHAT could it all exist? In nothingness?

In itself. I don't see why it has to exist within something else.

Deep Sight:
Yes infinite space, locked with infinite time, is indeed THE GREAT SOMETHING.

Space and time as we know them started with the expansion of the universe and are part of this GREAT SOMETHING we are part of and KNOW of. This universe is infinite as far as we are concerned.

What you call Infinite space and infinte time are idealized hypothetical models for what exists independent of the universe based on what is observable in the universe. Your infinite space and time supervene on this spacetime continuum we know of (....think we know of)

Maybe time isn't even real and it's just a way for us to sequence events and explain natural phenomenon.

According to Feynman, a system has not just one history but every possible history. As we seek our answers, we will explain Feynman’s approach in detail, and employ it to explore the idea that the universe itself has no single history, nor even an independent existence. That seems like a radical idea, even to many physicists. Indeed, like many notions in today’s science, it appears to violate common sense. But common sense is based upon everyday experience, not upon the universe as it is revealed through the marvels of technologies such as those that allow us to gaze deep into the atom or back to the early universe

Until the advent of modern physics it was generally thought that all knowledge of the world could be obtained through direct observation, that things are what they seem, as perceived through our senses. But the spectacular success of modern physics, which is based upon concepts such as Feynman’s that clash with everyday experience, has shown that that is not the case. The naive view of reality therefore is not compatible with modern physics.

According to M-theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being or god. Rather, these multiple universes arise naturally from physical law. They are a prediction of science. Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states at later times, that is, at times like the present, long after their creation. Most of these states will be quite unlike the universe we observe and quite unsuitable for the existence of any form of life.

Some people support a model in which time goes back even further than the big bang. It is not yet clear whether a model in which time continued back beyond the big bang would be better at explaining present observations because it seems the laws of the evolution of the universe may break down at the big bang. If they do, it would make no sense to create a model that encompasses time before the big bang, because what existed then would have no observable consequences for the present, and so we might as well stick with the idea that the big bang was the creation of the world.

In the first two thousand or so years of scientific thought, ordinary experience and intuition were the basis for theoretical explanation. As we improved our technology and expanded the range of phenomena that we could observe, we began to find nature behaving in ways that were less and less in line with our everyday experience and hence with our intuition, as evidenced by the experiment with buckyballs. That experiment is typical of the type of phenomena that cannot be encompassed by classical science but are described by what is called quantum physics. In fact, Richard Feynman wrote that the double-slit experiment like the one we described above “contains all the mystery of quantum mechanics.” The principles of quantum physics were developed in the first few decades of the twentieth century after Newtonian theory was found to be inadequate for the description of nature on the atomic—or subatomic—level.

The fundamental theories of physics describe the forces of nature and how objects react to them. Classical theories such as Newton’s are built upon a framework reflecting everyday experience, in which material objects have an individual existence, can be located at definite locations, follow definite paths, and so on. Quantum physics provides a framework for understanding how nature operates on atomic and subatomic scales, but as we’ll see in more detail later, it dictates a completely different conceptual schema, one in which an object’s position, path, and even its past and future are not precisely determined.

So though the components of everyday objects obey quantum physics, Newton’s laws form an effective theory that describes very accurately how the composite structures that form our everyday world behave. That might sound strange, but there are many instances in science in which a large assemblage appears to behave in a manner that is different from the behavior of its individual components.

The responses of a single neuron hardly portend those of the human brain, nor does knowing about a water molecule tell you much about the behavior of a lake. In the case of quantum physics, physicists are still working to figure out the details of how Newton’s laws emerge from the quantum domain. What we do know is that the components of all objects obey the laws of quantum physics, and the Newtonian laws are a good approximation for describing the way macroscopic objects made of those quantum components behave.

The predictions of Newtonian theory therefore match the view of reality we all develop as we experience the world around us. But individual atoms and molecules operate in a manner profoundly different from that of our everyday experience. Quantum physics is a new model of reality that gives us a picture of the universe. It is a picture in which many concepts fundamental to our intuitive understanding of reality no longer have meaning.

The universe, according to quantum physics, has no single past, or history.

The idea that the universe is expanding involves a bit of subtlety. For example, we don’t mean the universe is expanding in the manner that, say, one might expand one’s house, by knocking out a wall and positioning a new bathroom where once there stood a majestic oak. Rather than space extending itself, it is the distance between any two points within the universe that is growing.

It is important to realize that the expansion of space does not affect the size of material objects such as galaxies, stars, apples, atoms, or other objects held together by some sort of force. Rather, because the galaxies are bound by gravitational forces, the circle and the galaxies within it would keep their size and configuration as the balloon enlarged. This is important because we can detect expansion only if our measuring instruments have fixed sizes. If everything were free to expand, then we, our yardsticks, our laboratories, and so on would all expand proportionately and we would not notice any difference.

. . . but although one can think of the big bang picture as a valid description of early times, it is wrong to take the big bang literally, that is, to think of Einstein’s theory as providing a true picture of the origin of the universe. That is because general relativity predicts there to be a point in time at which the temperature, density, and curvature of the universe are all infinite, a situation mathematicians call a singularity. To a physicist this means that Einstein’s theory breaks down at that point and therefore cannot be used to predict how the universe began, only how it evolved afterward. So although we can employ the equations of general relativity and our observations of the heavens to learn about the universe at a very young age, it is not correct to carry the big bang picture all the way back to the beginning.

But if you go far enough back in time, the universe was as small as the Planck size, a billion-trillion-trillionth of a centimeter, which is the scale at which quantum theory does have to be taken into account. So though we don’t yet have a complete quantum theory of gravity, we do know that the origin of the universe was a quantum event. As a result, just as we combined quantum theory and general relativity—at least provisionally—to derive the theory of inflation, if we want to go back even further and understand the origin of the universe, we must combine what we know about general relativity with quantum theory.

To see how this works, we need to understand the principle that gravity warps space and time. Warpage of space is easier to visualize than warpage of time. Imagine that the universe is the surface of a flat billiard table. The table’s surface is a flat space, at least in two dimensions. If you roll a ball on the table it will travel in a straight line. But if the table becomes warped or dented in places, . . . then the ball will curve.

Since we can’t step outside our own space-time to view its warpage, the space-time warpage in our universe is harder to imagine. But curvature can be detected even if you cannot step out and view it from the perspective of a larger space. It can be detected from within the space itself. Imagine a micro-ant confined to the surface of the table. Even without the ability to leave the table, the ant could detect the warpage by carefully charting distances. For example, the distance around a circle in flat space is always a bit more than three times the distance across its diameter (the actual multiple is p). But if the ant cut across a circle encompassing the well in the table pictured above, it would find that the distance across is greater than expected, greater than one-third the distance around it. In fact, if the well were deep enough, the ant would find that the distance around the circle is shorter than the distance across it. The same is true of warpage in our universe—it stretches or compresses the distance between points of space, changing its geometry, or shape, in a way that is measurable from within the universe. Warpage of time stretches or compresses time intervals in an analogous manner.

Armed with these ideas, let’s return to the issue of the beginning of the universe. We can speak separately of space and time, as we have in this discussion, in situations involving low speeds and weak gravity. In general, however, time and space can become intertwined, and so their stretching and compressing also involve a certain amount of mixing. This mixing is important in the early universe and the key to understanding the beginning of time.

The issue of the beginning of time is a bit like the issue of the edge of the world. When people thought the world was flat, one might have wondered whether the sea poured over its edge. This has been tested experimentally: One can go around the world and not fall off. The problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time, however, seemed to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to have been someone (i.e., God) to set the trains going. Although Einstein’s general theory of relativity unified time and space as space-time and involved a certain mixing of space and time, time was still different from space, and either had a beginning and an end or else went on forever. However, once we add the effects of quantum theory to the theory of relativity, in extreme cases warpage can occur to such a great extent that time behaves like another dimension of space.

In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics. If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time?

The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundary—the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. In an analogous manner, when one combines the general theory of relativity with quantum theory, the question of what happened before the beginning of the universe is rendered meaningless. This idea that histories should be closed surfaces without boundary is called the no-boundary condition.

Over the centuries many, including Aristotle, believed that the universe must have always existed in order to avoid the issue of how it was set up. Others believed the universe had a beginning, and used it as an argument for the existence of God. The realization that time behaves like space presents a new alternative. It removes the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some god.

One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion.

If that were true, there would be no reason that bodies could not appear anywhere and everywhere. Empty space would therefore be unstable. But if it costs energy to create an isolated body, such instability cannot happen, because, as we’ve said, the energy of the universe must remain constant. That is what it takes to make the universe locally stable—to make it so that things don’t just appear everywhere from nothing.

If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing?
That is why there must be a law like gravity.

Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater this negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can.

Because gravity shapes space and time, it allows space-time to be locally stable but globally unstable. On the scale of the entire universe, the positive energy of the matter can be balanced by the negative gravitational energy, and so there is no restriction on the creation of whole universes.

Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing in the manner described in Chapter 6. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

All quotes taken from "The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

PhysicsQED:
My point was that ruling out the "first cause" or "prime mover," whether that prime mover is a God like entity or not, on the basis of it needing a prior cause may not necessarily the case. Basically I disagree with the assumptions underlying the argument of the opening post of this thread.

It would depend on your angle. I will agree with you if you are arguing scientifically. I will disagree with you if you are arguing philosophically. As you can see, first cause proponents on a "philosophical and logical' basis say everything needs a first cause except their own first cause. That is clumsy logic at best but as I noted and as should be obvious, we can argue all day and it wont change a thing.

Reality is not determined by our limited understanding.

For all I know, first cause proponents may actually be right, its just that they cannot prove it logically.

As I've said in the past, god cannot be proven using logic.

jayriginal:

All quotes taken from "The Grand Design" , Stephen Hawkin and Leonard Mlodinow, Bantam Books, New York, 2010.

And all quotes perfectly nonsensical.

You must be a funny chap, quoting renowned id.iots like Stephen Hawking? ? ? ? ?

jayriginal:
That is clumsy logic at best

.

Oh no it is not. Trace backwards and it works out perfectly fine.

but as I noted and as should be obvious, we can argue all day and it wont change a thing.

Indeed.

Reality is not determined by our limited understanding.

Correct.

For all I know, first cause proponents may actually be right, its just that they cannot prove it logically.

Oh, they can, and they have: but it wont make sense to to illogically dogmatic slaves of pseudo science such as your self.

As I've said in the past, god cannot be proven using logic.

Of course it can. And it has. Severally.

^^^

Ok.

^^^^
No you

^^^ What the freaking hell are you on about?