21-09-2004 08:05									#151
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Tell me, what happens before Planck time?

And?

This is the strength of science, we can freely admit that there are things we don't know.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Did everything just spring up out of nothing, or do we just have no way of investigating before that period?

Any philosophical conundrum that applies to this universe applies equally to YHWH. If we must look for an origin of everything, why stop at this universe?

	21-09-2004 11:17									#152
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

The Ontological Argument is even easier to refute. First of all, you can just dismiss it because it is just "proof by definition," or reject the idea that existence is a property.

Even if you don't go that route, it depends on three highly implausible premeses:

1. Something that exists is somehow greater than an identical thing that doesn't exist.
2. Existence is a necessary condition for perfection.
3. If something is perfect, it must exist.

You can easily knock over any one of these.

	21-09-2004 12:38									#153
	Got spare money?

5d God hypothesis always give me headaches. It's worse than time travel paradox that way!

It seems to me that in some cases a nd entity can percieve the entirety of a n-1d entitys environment as a finite n-1d geometric (in that special case the two entitys do not share the same time dimension, the nd's time dimension is imperceptable to the n-1d entitity and the n-1d's time dimension appears to be a spatial dimension to the nd). In such a case it would seem that the nd entity might manipulate a n-1d entity's environment in such a way that the n-1d entity percieves communication. However, the real result of this would be the creation of an entire new n-1d spacetime that would alter the 'past' of all events which otherwise had occured in the absense of the 'commication tinkering'. An obvious work around for this would be to have the nd entity create the n-1d entity and it's environment such that the communication was imbedded in it's timeline from the moment of it's creation. In this case the n-1d entity might percieve communication with the nd entity but to the nd entity the entire n-1d environment would appear to be a static unchanging object.

One thing remains clear though. You cannot have true two way 'communication' between such a n-1d and nd entity simply because for the nd entity all information from all points of the n-1d entitys timeline are all available at once and any 'response' to that information in the form of further tinkering with the n-1d entity directly or it's environment would destroy all events that such a response would effect 'after' the moment of alteration ('after' in this case refering to time points 'futureward' along the n-1d's time axis from the site of the 'response'.

In the circumstance that both entities shared the same time dimension but one enjoyed access to an additional space dimension it seems as if maybe true communication could occur. but in that case both would be constrained by that same time dimension. And so while the entity with more dimensional access could be practically omnipotent in interfering in the fewer spacial dimensions environment it would lack the omniscience that being able to percieve the time dimension of the environment with fewer dimensions as a spatial dimension would confer.

So if my understanding is correct, a 5d entity interacting with our universe might allow for it to exhibit the capabilities of God and would even instantly imply that it would be in some sense our creator, it would also mean that it would have direct responsibility for all events in our universe.

Whaleboy, is the entire reason that you reject the possibility of a 5d entity interacting with our universe the fact that such interaction would inherently disrupt the timeline? Would you reject the possiblity of a creator interacting but only in the act of creation? Such 'interaction' could appear to be continuous and ongoing to us since it would effect various points of our timeline but to the 5d entity it would simply be a single event.

	21-09-2004 13:37									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: [SIZE=1] Urban Ranger: Any philosophical conundrum that applies to this universe applies equally to YHWH. If we must look for an origin of everything, why stop at this universe?

Why would philosophical conundrums that apply to this universe apply equally to God?
If God is from an whole other realm, with other rationals and natural laws, why would that what counts for us count for him as well?

Man created computers. Computers need electricity. Now two computers say to each other: everything we know needs electricity. In fact our existance (still computers talking) consists of electricity and no-elictricity (hence the bits, the 1 and the 0)
Anything that created us must fall under the laws of electricity.

Pherhaps for any smart computer that is the highest he can get. But in fact man who did create the computer in fact, does not have to obey to the laws of electricity. Man invented electricity.

There's no reason to be sure that God must obey to the same laws as everything in our realm must obey to.
We can be sure that everything we can observe has to obey to these laws, but we can't be sure about the things outside our realm.

God created time, God created the need for a first cause, God created space, God created dimensions.
We don't understand how anything can exist without cause, time, space, dimensions. Like computers can't imagine anything without electricity.

Saying that God needs a cause because we need a cause is like saying men need electricity because computers do so.

	21-09-2004 13:59									#155
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm not going to read thru this entire thread. It seems filled with fruitless argument. However, I do have a question. Do we have any idea, from a physics point of view, of what existed just prior to the big bang?

	21-09-2004 15:24									#156
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Yes, though not conclusively. The most recognised theory, IIRC, is that that there was an abundance of energy, that under some extreme conditions can turn into matter, I believe in a reverse nuclear reaction sort of way, and that caused the big bang. But then my knowledge of astrophysics comes from Horizon, Equinox and various other documentaries, I don't claim to have studied the field.

	21-09-2004 16:58									#157
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Drogue Yes, though not conclusively. The most recognised theory, IIRC, is that that there was an abundance of energy, that under some extreme conditions can turn into matter, I believe in a reverse nuclear reaction sort of way, and that caused the big bang. But then my knowledge of astrophysics comes from Horizon, Equinox and various other documentaries, I don't claim to have studied the field.

Very dense energy?

How could that happen naturally?

	21-09-2004 16:59									#158
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Why would philosophical conundrums that apply to this universe apply equally to God? If God is from an whole other realm, with other rationals and natural laws, why would that what counts for us count for him as well?

Because it's philosophy, not science.

	21-09-2004 17:00									#159
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ned I'm not going to read thru this entire thread. It seems filled with fruitless argument. However, I do have a question. Do we have any idea, from a physics point of view, of what existed just prior to the big bang?

All of the universe cooped up in an infinitesimal point.

	21-09-2004 17:01									#160
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker All of the universe cooped up in an infinitesimal point.

In the form of energy.

But, how could that happen naturally?

	21-09-2004 17:18									#161
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

It ... ... started out like that?

How could God happen naturally?

	21-09-2004 17:38									#162
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Given that such a huge quantity of energy would be, by it's nature, unstable, it seems plausible. Given that much energy again, yes it could happen. However I'm not sure you understand the scale of the energy. Imagine the entire universe broken down in nuclear reactions, with the lead that's left compressed into a black hole. Probably gives you an idea. But like I said, I'm no expert, I'd recommend doing some research on it to find a better answer.

	21-09-2004 17:44									#163
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

We can't model what happens at singularities through generally accepted physics.

	21-09-2004 19:00									#164
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Saying that God needs a cause because we need a cause is like saying men need electricity because computers do so.

So, why does this universe need a cause?

	21-09-2004 19:08									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by CyberShy Why would philosophical conundrums that apply to this universe apply equally to God? If God is from an whole other realm, with other rationals and natural laws, why would that what counts for us count for him as well? Because it's philosophy, not science.

philosophy acts within the borders of our ratio. Otherwise it's phantasy, not philosophy.
why should God have to fit within the borders of our ratio?

quote: Urban Ranger: So, why does this universe need a cause?

Because all parts of the universe need a cause.
And the universe is just the sum of all it's parts.

But indeed, you can chose. Either one choses to believe that the universe needs no cause and has always been, or one believes that something extra-universal caused the universe.

I think there is no scientific reason for believing that anything within our realm could have always existed without any cause.

	21-09-2004 19:11									#166
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy But indeed, you can chose. Either one choses to believe that the universe needs no cause and has always been, or one believes that something extra-universal caused the universe. I think there is no scientific reason for believing that anything within our realm could have always existed without any cause.

Or this universe could come into existence via a random quantum event.

	21-09-2004 21:00									#167
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The search for the origin of the universe is scientific, not pseudo scientific. This is the difference between doctors of medicine and witch doctors.

	21-09-2004 21:03									#168
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Or this universe could come into existence via a random quantum event.

No, because quantum effects occur after the universe exists.

IMO, the universe must always have existed.

	21-09-2004 21:05									#169
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy philosophy acts within the borders of our ratio. Otherwise it's phantasy, not philosophy. why should God have to fit within the borders of our ratio?

"ratio"?

That whole posts was random nonsense.

Philosophy acts through pure rationality. It is the formulation of relations between predefined concepts such that, given the definitions of those concepts, the relation is guaranteed to be true. Philosophy is fantasy.

quote: Because all parts of the universe need a cause.

Prove it. And what caused God?

	21-09-2004 21:07									#170
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ned The search for the origin of the universe is scientific, not pseudo scientific. This is the difference between doctors of medicine and witch doctors.

The search for the origin of the universe shouldn't exist - by definition nothing is outside of the universe, as the universe is the set of all that exists, therefore nothing outside of the universe exists. Ergo, an outside cause of the universe is nonexistant. QED.

Pwned.

	21-09-2004 21:51									#171
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker The search for the origin of the universe shouldn't exist - by definition nothing is outside of the universe, as the universe is the set of all that exists, therefore nothing outside of the universe exists. Ergo, an outside cause of the universe is nonexistant. QED. Pwned.

False premise.

	21-09-2004 23:16									#172
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker IMO, the universe must always have existed.

It doesn't make sense to both have an expanding universe and a universe that has always existed.

quote: as the universe is the set of all that exists

The universe is not the set of everything that has ever existed, so your argument doesn't apply to the universe's origin.

	22-09-2004 01:06									#173
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: He too assumes God exists already, that' the issue here. Hell that's why it's called a 'belief'. It's not real

I've never seen New York. I believe it to be there, but only because of what others have told me. Does that mean that New York does not exist?

	22-09-2004 01:09									#174
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Given that we're not debating the means, but rather the fact of evolution, no, it doesn't.

Punctuated equilibrium is much easier to reconcile with some form of evolution directed by God, and not by chance.

quote: Because you're going to suggest, on no grounds at all, that such serendipity, despite having simple, purely scientific explanations, is the result of divine intervention. And you'll be hopelessly wrong.

If God has intervened in nature before through catastrophes, why not also in this manner?

	22-09-2004 01:11									#175
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: However I like being given credit for being cunning when it was merely good fortune

It is a cunning arguement to redirect this away from punctuated equilibrium, regardless of the actual motivations.

	22-09-2004 01:14									#176
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: And? This is the strength of science, we can freely admit that there are things we don't know.

So? Theologians say the same. Science cannot disprove the actions and the intervention of God on the world because of the inherent limitations of science.

quote: Any philosophical conundrum that applies to this universe applies equally to YHWH. If we must look for an origin of everything, why stop at this universe?

For the whole reason we debated earlier in the thread as to the necessity of a First Mover. This is why your first statement does not hold, that the same conundrum applying to the universe also applies to God.

	22-09-2004 01:16									#177
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi If God has intervened in nature before through catastrophes, why not also in this manner?

If God is omnipotent, then why would one form of divine intervention be any more likely than another form of divine intervention?

	22-09-2004 01:38									#178
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I've never seen New York. I believe it to be there, but only because of what others have told me. Does that mean that New York does not exist?

You've seen pictures, heard news from, and spoken to many, many people who've actually seen it themselves.

I've never seen Atlantis, and I don't believe that to exist. I've never seen Amsterdam, but I'm relatively sure it exists. Your analogy is far more like the second than the first of those examples.

	22-09-2004 01:42									#179
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: The Ontological Argument is even easier to refute. First of all, you can just dismiss it because it is just "proof by definition," or reject the idea that existence is a property.

Well, you get into lots of problems with saying that existence is not a property and is contingent on our will. It also causes problems for scientific inquiry, because this is one of the primary assumptions, that existence is a property, and does not change depending on the observer.

I'm not sure why you say the Ontological argument is just a proof by definition. Can you explain what you mean by the term?

quote: 1. Something that exists is somehow greater than an identical thing that doesn't exist. 2. Existence is a necessary condition for perfection. 3. If something is perfect, it must exist.

1. Seems true for all cases, that existence is always greater than negation.

2. That for something to be perfect it must also exist? I don't think that. We have an idea of perfection that does not exist, in each one of us, that seems greatly at odds with what we see around us, which is not perfect.

So something, like an idea, need not exist physically, yet it can still be perfect.

For something to be perfect and exist also implies certain things. One would be an immunity to entropy, such that a body would not decay or weaken.

As for the third, I'm curious as to why you see this as a necessary presupposition. If something is perfect, it does not necessarily have to exist. Most of what we understand as perfect cannot exist do to the constraints of nature.

quote: You can easily knock over any one of these.

Does the argument rely upon anyone of these presuppositions, UR?

	22-09-2004 01:44									#180
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: If God is omnipotent, then why would one form of divine intervention be any more likely than another form of divine intervention?

Good question.

Such intervention would have to be consistent with his nature and his desires. I don't see any of evolution as contrary to God's desires in nature.