God Co-equal With Nature.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

I agree, and I have never suggested that. My point is that there could not have ever been a point in history, regarding Nature or the Uni-Multiverse - where absolutely nothing at all existed.

Bollocks. Before the universe existed, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING EXISTED. There was no matter, there was no space and there was no time.

Here's a quote from the New Scientist: Due to the weirdness of quantum mechanics, nothing transforms into something all the time.

Here's another quote: Physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss argues that a full understanding of the science that has yielded our current picture of the universe also allows us to see that something can indeed come from nothing.

Andrew66 wrote

Spontaneous emission of particles from a vacum only is known to occur within a temporal, 3D space with a fluxuation gravity field. A temporal 3D space with a gravity field is not truly nothing.

Absolute and total Non-existence (where nothing at all exists, no universe, no multiverse, no laws, no potential, nothing) begetting existence has of course never been demonstrated scientifically.

Man does not have the ability to create an absolute 'nothingness'. 3-D space already exists and we cannot do anything about that (yet?). Man therefore only has the ability to create a matter-free vacuum in existing 3-D space. That said, when ALL matter was evacuated from a vessel, the spontaneous creation and subsequent annihilation of particle/anti-particle pairs was observed. For the record, the vessel was protected from all know rays (cosmic etc.) and was NOT subjected to an imposed magnetic field but, of course, was subjected to the Earth's gravity field.

Andrew66 wrote

And, No it is unreasonable to as you put it just "suppose this" - that is a giant leap (of faith).

Even if true, and absolute non-existence (no space, time or gravity) was unstable and yields space, time and gravity - i.e. particles - there is no suggestion why this process would suddenly start - hence an infinite regress is still expected then my argument towards divine evolution is just fine.

Awe, ffs, here we go yet again. The 'nothingness' that existed pre-big bang, was, of itself, unstable. Why? Scientists are unsure. As observed in the matter-free vacuum experiment, matter is spontaneously created. Pre-big bang, the process by which matter was created didn't suddenly begin at a specific point. It was a process which was continuous and random, as predicted by Heisenberg in his uncertainty principle.

Now, once a particle/anti-particle pair is created, they annihilate each other under normal circumstances. Because we exists, there must have taken place a particle/anti-particle pair creation under circumstances which were so unusual that re-combination was not possible. I read somewhere that it has been postulated that multiple, rather than single, particle/anti-particle pairs were simultaneously created and two or more particles combined thus preventing the particle/anti-particle pair re-combination. This extremely rare event constituted the beginning of the space-time continuum in which we exist.

When did this rare event happen?

To discuss 'when' is illogical because pre-big bang, time did not exist.

What do you think happened? Did your god wake up from his slumbers one morning and, after 10 trillion such wake ups, suddenly think, 'Oh, I know what I'll do today ..... I'll ...... create the universe!, That's what I'll do, I'll create the universe right after I've had my bacon, eggy weggs and baked beanos.'

[Davin]

A proposed god can never be a co-equal hypothesis with nature, because a god is supposed to be the cause for all existence. That necessarily means that any explanation including a god is going to be at least one level more complex: instead of "this happened due to the laws of nature" it becomes, "a god made the laws of nature and this happened because of the laws of nature."

[Andrew66]

As I stated earlier, the argument - that
1) Existence and
2) Change
must be eternal
And therefore over an eternity (already past) an all powerful - essentially indestructable being would have likely evolved,
(note: omnipotence is one of the traditional characters of religious folk declare as God),
would not be acceptable to any religious folk (i.e. Christian Muslim Jew) because their view indeed is that God must have created Existence and Change etc.
That's what makes the argument unique from other religious apologists. Nature proceeds God, God develops from eternal nature.
If you don't like calling this essentially omnipotent being God - then call it whatever you like - but it makes sense that there is a good chance it does exist.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

As I stated earlier, the argument - that
1) Existence and
2) Change
must be eternal

I'm not reading through this year old thread to get up to date (not right now, anyway).

Clarify something for me - is this your argument? If yes, why must change be eternal, and how does it get over entropy ("the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity" - Merriam-Webster) - ie no change?

[Andrew66]

Michael wrote

Clarify something for me - is this your argument? If yes, why must change be eternal, and how does it get over entropy ("the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity" - Merriam-Webster) - ie no change?

Yes, basic premises are

1) Existence of some form or another must have always been (i.e. is "eternal" - never had a beginning, never created).
I define Existence as a state of affairs which have some kind of a property - even if the property is merely a "law" or instability

e.g. 0 -> <- +1 + (-1)

In this example some have said "0" is a non existent state which is unstable and is in a spontaneous equilibrium between "existent" matter - antimatter pairings. I submit that the "0" in this example is still existent as it has a "property" - in this case to morph.

Support: if ever the some total of existence was "non existence" - there would be no property by which our universe could have arisen.

2) Change has also always been (i.e. "eternal").

Think of it, if ever the some total of existence was immutable, or unable or without potential to change, then the entire state of affairs of existence would be frozen, timeless - forever. As this is not what we observe (we live in a dynamic changing universe) - change could never have been completely absent at any point in history.

Premise 1 and 2 lead me to the next step - an infinitely changing state of affairs (already occurred over an eternity past) will have caused evolution of species, and over a long enough period this cosmic evolution would more than likely have lead to a supreme, all powerful entity - immune from destruction - where further evolution would no longer harm it.

With regards to entropy, because of quantum fluctuations the universe has never and will never ever reach a state where there is inability to change - regardless of entropy.

[Hobotronic2037]

Andrew66 wrote

Yes, basic premises are

1) Existence of some form or another must have always been (i.e. is "eternal" - never had a beginning, never created).
I define Existence as a state of affairs which have some kind of a property - even if the property is merely a "law" or instability

e.g. 0 -> <- +1 + (-1)

In this example some have said "0" is a non existent state which is unstable and is in a spontaneous equilibrium between "existent" matter - antimatter pairings. I submit that the "0" in this example is still existent as it has a "property" - in this case to morph.

Support: if ever the some total of existence was "non existence" - there would be no property by which our universe could have arisen.

2) Change has also always been (i.e. "eternal").

Think of it, if ever the some total of existence was immutable, or unable or without potential to change, then the entire state of affairs of existence would be frozen, timeless - forever. As this is not what we observe (we live in a dynamic changing universe) - change could never have been completely absent at any point in history.

Premise 1 and 2 lead me to the next step - an infinitely changing state of affairs (already occurred over an eternity past) will have caused evolution of species, and over a long enough period this cosmic evolution would more than likely have lead to a supreme, all powerful entity - immune from destruction - where further evolution would no longer harm it.

With regards to entropy, because of quantum fluctuations the universe has never and will never ever reach a state where there is inability to change - regardless of entropy.

Interesting theory. I think it may be a stretch to say that the concept of "eternal" exists in reality any more than "infinity" does. Or that existence and change are the sole causal ingredients of evolution or that evolution is even a constant process. Perhaps it's a pendulum and devolution happens for the same stretch of time, erasing the progress of evolution. That said, I very much enjoy your thinking here. If there is an all-powerfully evolved being, would you think it's an organic life form, or a supercomputer type of intelligence that has gained sentience and then jettisoned its carbon-based creators?

[Smellyoldgit]

Premise 1 and 2 lead me to the next step - an infinitely changing state of affairs (already occurred over an eternity past) will have caused evolution of species, and over a long enough period this cosmic evolution would more than likely have lead to a supreme, all powerful entity - immune from destruction - where further evolution would no longer harm it.

Oh dear, poor ol'Andrew still trying to hammer his round god-peg into the square butt hole of reality.

will have caused evolution of species

Try 'may have caused' - we have no evidence for any evolution beyond our own little blue dot.

cosmic evolution

I assume you're not mixing the two entirely different topics of physical/chemical cosmic development with biological evolution.

would more than likely have lead to a supreme, all powerful entity

Try 'may have lead in my wildest deluded dreams, to the particular flavour of deity that I do so desparately wish was real'. Why the fuck do you constantly seek to invent a supreme being to fill the creator role you so weepingly desire? The status of our own localised life forms don't need a creator - let alone a cosmic Jewish goat felching shit-stirrer.

Andrew, you are shallower than an evaporated puddle, and your 'arguments' about as convincing as Bristol Palin's pleas of virginity. You really should take a long hard look at the hole you're trying to ram your fucked up peg into.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

Yes, basic premises are

1) Existence of some form or another must have always been (i.e. is "eternal" - never had a beginning, never created).
I define Existence as a state of affairs which have some kind of a property - even if the property is merely a "law" or instability

e.g. 0 -> <- +1 + (-1)

In this example some have said "0" is a non existent state which is unstable and is in a spontaneous equilibrium between "existent" matter - antimatter pairings. I submit that the "0" in this example is still existent as it has a "property" - in this case to morph.

Support: if ever the some total of existence was "non existence" - there would be no property by which our universe could have arisen.

Okay. I have no real issue with the idea of an 'eternal' universe. I won't go as far as to say it must be that way, but I lean towards it as an idea.

2) Change has also always been (i.e. "eternal").

Think of it, if ever the some total of existence was immutable, or unable or without potential to change, then the entire state of affairs of existence would be frozen, timeless - forever. As this is not what we observe (we live in a dynamic changing universe) - change could never have been completely absent at any point in history.

This one is a little shakier to me. It may not be what we observe now but why does that mean it could never have been then case?

Premise 1 and 2 lead me to the next step - an infinitely changing state of affairs (already occurred over an eternity past) will have caused evolution of species, and over a long enough period this cosmic evolution would more than likely have lead to a supreme, all powerful entity - immune from destruction - where further evolution would no longer harm it.

1) Why do you assume this? Evolution is not a ladder. Each 'step' is not a step upwards towards some ultimate being. Evolution does not make the best possible lifeform, only the best suited to its environment. What type of environment do you speculate would necessitate that natural selection 'evolve' such a creature?

2) If we accept this premise, what reason do you have to think that this process has already achieved this point, and is not still on-going?


3) If we accept this premise, what explanation do you suggest for why only one of these 'entities' evolved, when evolution and natural selection happens gradually to a population on sucessive generations, not to a single entity?

[ghoulslime]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Oh dear, poor ol'Andrew still trying to hammer his round god-peg into the square butt hole of reality.

....You really should take a long hard look at the hole you're trying to ram your fucked up peg into.

I can assure you, Andrew has experimented thoroughly with pegs and holes. He will get any peg to fit with enough torturing.

[Andrew66]

Hi Michael

With regards to premise 2 (change is eternal) you wrote:


[quote=Michael;684868]This one is a little shakier to me. It may not be what we observe now but why does that mean it could never have been then case? [quote=Michael;684868]

I submit that if ever (at any point in history past) the sum total of all existence, was ever - all at once in its entirety - changeless and importantly also without potential for change - then the entire sum of existence would have remained stuck that way, frozen in that particular changeless state. Since we live - at a later time - in a dynamic changing state of affairs this shows that a completely changeless existence (without potential for change) must never have existed.

T1 (sum total of existence changeless, with no potential for change) -> T2 (existence changed), in the absence of an external driver, is impossible.

I could slightly amend my argument for premise 2 however, "potential for change" must be eternal, as opposed to change itself.

I suppose its possible for example that the sum total of existence started out changeless (or at some intermediate step became changeless), and then began to change - but that is sort of a "First Cause" or "Primary Mover" God Argument isn't it??, with a mover required beyond existence - which is definition ally impossible.

So likely change is also eternal (and not just potential for change), but potential for change is mandatory.

[Andrew66]

Hobotronic2037 wrote

That said, I very much enjoy your thinking here. If there is an all-powerfully evolved being, would you think it's an organic life form, or a supercomputer type of intelligence that has gained sentience and then jettisoned its carbon-based creators?

The only thing that could be gleaned from the argument is that the alleged cosmically evolved being - given an eternity of evolutionary change- would be predicted to be supremely resilient and indestructible from all existent natural and/or conscious forces - or else there would be potential for de-evolution to occur whereby the entity would cease to exist.

No idea whether this means organic life, or supercomputer.

I would imagine that very likely however the entity would be a conscious being with supreme intelligence, as a supreme intellect (I think most would agree) would hold greater potential for resilience versus a lesser intellect or devoid of intellect being.

[Michael]

Andrew66 wrote

I could slightly amend my argument for premise 2 however, "potential for change" must be eternal, as opposed to change itself.

I think that's a more accessible argument.

Honestly, though, I'd much rather get your answers to the other questions I posed -

1) Why do you assume this? Evolution is not a ladder. Each 'step' is not a step upwards towards some ultimate being. Evolution does not make the best possible lifeform, only the best suited to its environment. What type of environment do you speculate would necessitate that natural selection 'evolve' such a creature?

2) If we accept this premise, what reason do you have to think that this process has already achieved this point, and is not still on-going?


3) If we accept this premise, what explanation do you suggest for why only one of these 'entities' evolved, when evolution and natural selection happens gradually to a population on sucessive generations, not to a single entity?[/quote]

[Andrew66]

Michael wrote

I think that's a more accessible argument.

Honestly, though, I'd much rather get your answers to the other questions I posed -

1) Why do you assume this? Evolution is not a ladder. Each 'step' is not a step upwards towards some ultimate being. Evolution does not make the best possible lifeform, only the best suited to its environment. What type of environment do you speculate would necessitate that natural selection 'evolve' such a creature??

Hi Michael

You are of course correct, evolution does not of course take steps inexorably "upwards" towards a superior (and ultimately, an ultimately powerful) being.

Evolution moves up, down, sideways - but think of it.. over a very very very long time - arguably an infinite time, eventually - the statistically improbable event would happen where the evolutionary steps would go up, up, up, up to a finite high threshold point, where the resultant being would be simply too powerful and resilient to be overthrown or destroyed by any other existent entity or process thereafter - and hence from that point forward "immune" from de-evolution.

We would state that such a being had attained "immortality" if you will.

[Andrew66]

Michael wrote

2) If we accept this premise, what reason do you have to think that this process has already achieved this point, and is not still on-going??

Good question,

I assume from the outset that the "entire sum total of existence" is a closed system - hence it should be theoretically possible for an entity, once reaching a high enough "threshold" state within the system - to become completely un-overthrow-able, or immune from attack or decay from any potential process - natural or derived. Hence the evolutionary process would functionally end for the un-overthrow-able entity.

The other reason is that if we except that existence and potential for change (and likely change itself) is eternal, then its not a big leap to say the cosmic evolutionary process has already undergone an infinite series of steps - hence the evolutionary outcome of the alleged supreme entity should be complete - and unable to "get better", as it were.

In other words, once the threshold was met, the evolutionary process - with regards to the supreme entity - would have functionally ended.

[Hobotronic2037]

Andrew66 wrote

The only thing that could be gleaned from the argument is that the alleged cosmically evolved being - given an eternity of evolutionary change- would be predicted to be supremely resilient and indestructible from all existent natural and/or conscious forces - or else there would be potential for de-evolution to occur whereby the entity would cease to exist.

No idea whether this means organic life, or supercomputer.

I would imagine that very likely however the entity would be a conscious being with supreme intelligence, as a supreme intellect (I think most would agree) would hold greater potential for resilience versus a lesser intellect or devoid of intellect being.

I'm confused. What do you mean by supreme? It seems like an imprecise adjective for a scientific subject.