God Co-equal With Nature.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

If complete and utter non-existence is unstable, then all that follows is that complete and utter non-existence is unstable - NOT that an eternal agency exists.

Non-existence didn't suddenly become unstable and the universe come into being. Non-existence is, of itself, unstable. An agency is therefore unnecessary.

My point is that - yes, even if I grant that non-existence may be, in and of itself unstable, if so, IT IS THIS INSTABILITY which becomes the agency. If non-existence was "stable", than there would be no capacity for change or agency (i.e. from utter non-existence), and we wouldn't be here writing on this post!

But still, I don't think it reasonable that in the history or pre-history of the Multiverse,there could have ever been a state of affairs which was comprised of utter and total non-existence - as it is absurd to bequeath a property (such as instability) to a non-existent state. - IT doesn't exist!![/quote]

This feels like trench warfare but maybe progress is being made so let's continue.

0 = (+1) + (-1)

0 is a non-existent state and is unstable.

+1 represents matter.
-1 represents anti-matter.

(+1) and (-1) will, with a very high probability, recombine thus:

(+1) + (-1) = 0

The above occurs on a continual basis and is NOT a one-off event.

Scientists have already observed the above taking place in a laboratory.

So, from nothing comes something which recombines to give nothing unless .........

Now, what is the unless condition?

It could be an external 'force' (your god)

It could also be something of the form:

(+1) + (+1) = +2

In the above, rather than:

(+1) + (-1) = 0 taking place

(+1) + (+1) = +2 takes place, thus preventing:

(+1) + (-1) = 0 from taking place.

In other words, we now have the beginnings of a stable universe.

Now, why should:

(+1) + (+1) = +2 takes place

rather than

(+1) + (-1) = 0?

Because of the initial conditions.

Let's suppose that the Initial conditions vary.

Suppose that in the vast majority of initial condition cases, the initial conditions are such that:

(+1) + (-1) = 0 takes place.

However, suppose that there is an extremely rare set of initial conditions that causes:

(+1) + (+1) = +2 to take place

What this means is that, at "attempt X" to form a "stable universe", the initial conditions are such that:

(+1) + (+1) = +2 takes place and we have the embryo of a "stable universe" which occurred "when it did" - due to randomness in the initial conditions.

Questions:

1) Why is the non-existent state unstable?

2) What is the nature of the initial conditions?

3) Why were things the way they were before the Universe came into being?

The answer to all of these questions, and many more, are, for the moment, unknown.

However, that does NOT imply that answers will not be found. Nor does it imply the existence of GOD for that is what christians oft' do. They ride up on their white steeds and proclaim 'The scientists don't have answers, therefore god must exists'. Bollocks. All it means is that scientists don't have ALL of the answers YET.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

What is meant is that Krauss's nothing inherently has agency - in that Krauss's "nothing" does things, or makes things happen (e.g., invokes quantum fluctuations etc.)

This is not what "agency" means. Agency implies an agent, Krauss' definition does not refer at all to an agent. So I'm just wondering why you're trying to invoke the term "agency" here and that term means to you.

Andrew66 wrote

That is why most critics of Krauss's work, regardless of their religious convictions, agree that Krauss's nothing is not really "nothing" (in the sense of complete non-being, or utter non-existence).

To be fair, all the theist "nothing"s are also not really "nothing" either. Krauss is honest about what he means, the theists are not.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

This is not what "agency" means. Agency implies an agent, Krauss' definition does not refer at all to an agent. So I'm just wondering why you're trying to invoke the term "agency" here and that term means to you.

Hi Davin

The argument works without the term "agency" - agency can be replaced by the term "change"

Regarding premise (2) [ ]'s = deletion.
2) [Agency for] Change is also infinite or eternal. If there was ever an existent state of affairs without [agency] change....

I suppose you may continue to argue that even "change" is an unfair term as change is generally thought of as requiring a "changer"?? Well, maybe this is so because it simply has to to make sense?

Regarding the definition of nothingness, I believe theists define their nothing as non-being (i.e. utter non-existence). There is nothing that I can see which is dishonest about that.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Davin

The argument works without the term "agency" - agency can be replaced by the term "change"

Regarding premise (2) [ ]'s = deletion.
2) [Agency for] Change is also infinite or eternal. If there was ever an existent state of affairs without [agency] change...

I suppose you may continue to argue that even "change" is an unfair term as change is generally thought of as requiring a "changer"?? Well, maybe this is so because it simply has to to make sense?

Change does not imply a changer, changes happen without conscious beings involved at all, but agency necessarily requires an agent.

But now that that has been cleared up, we can go back to tackle premise one:

1) Existence is infinite or eternal. True non existence has no potential to produce anything Since we can attest that things obviously do exist, existence must therefore be eternal.

You still have a huge chasm between first part of the second sentence and the therefore. I can't find the bridge you used. The logic does not follow. It is a most classic example of a non sequitur. "Potatoes grow in the ground, therefore I mushroom water."

Andrew66 wrote

Regarding the definition of nothingness, I believe theists define their nothing as non-being (i.e. utter non-existence). There is nothing that I can see which is dishonest about that.

They define "nothing" as non-being... except their god. Unless you're saying that theist are claiming that their god is nothing (non-being). But in this way they are always making logical exceptions (read fallacies), for their god.

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

0 = (+1) + (-1)

0 is a non-existent state and is unstable.

+1 represents matter.
-1 represents anti-matter.

(+1) and (-1) will, with a very high probability, recombine thus:

(+1) + (-1) = 0

The above occurs on a continual basis and is NOT a one-off event.

Mondrian

Your assertion above, which I for the sake of argument can agree with, only seems to support my argument so I don't see what the problem is??

Lets say that the instability of non-existence is a brute fact, not a one off, but rather a continuing event as you propose.

Then why did the instability (i.e. 0 -> +1, -1 and process's like it) only appear to BEGIN to exist 13.7 years ago.?? Even if these types of events are rare.. lets say it takes a zillion zillion billion trillion events before an event takes hold to produce a universe, than maybe the process began lets say 20 billion years ago.

The point is.. that the quantum process should not have a beginning if it exists as a brute fact.

By positing a beginning, this opens up the problem of what triggered the first quantum event, and then what triggered that, and then what triggered the trigger (to infinitude).

Hence no matter how one slices the issue, by your proposal one is stuck with the realization that something (e.g. quantum events or the triggers leading to them) have always been occurring - hence, no matter how rare quantum effects beget universes, there should be an infinite number of universes over an infinite period of time, and hence cosmic evolution predicts development of a supremely high alien power which learns eventually to avoid decay and defeat attack (hence achieves immortality).





.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

Regarding the definition of nothingness, I believe theists define their nothing as non-being (i.e. utter non-existence). There is nothing that I can see which is dishonest about that.

Andrew

There is dishonesty in the theists claims.

Theists claim that, according to their definition, the nothingness that existed before creation must to be such that nothing can happen to it without external intervention i.e. god.

This nothing therefore can only exist provided that god exists because only god can cause something to be created out of nothing.

This argument doesn't hold water because, by definition, god must be external to the nothing since he cannot exist within the nothing because there is nothing within the nothing to exist in. He cannot exist outside of the nothing either because likewise, there isn't anything outside of the nothing to exist within.

Since he cannot exist within the nothing, nor can he exist external to the nothing, then, he cannot exist.

There's the dishonesty, right there. The theist view of the nothing is that nothing can happen to it without intervention. You know this because?

He cannot be eternal either because time, before the universe, didn't exist.

Let's suppose that, in spite of all of these issues, he exists anyway. Why create the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Why then? What was so special about then?

As I said in a previous post, the nothingness is, of itself, unstable and doesn't need an agent to create a universe. This has been shown to be true under laboratory conditions.

Eventually, it gave rise to a universe which, because of probability, just happened to be 13.7 billion years ago.

Bottom line: Atheists have partial proof of their claims. Theists have none.

Now, let's try and forget that you are a Theist and that I am an Atheist - just for a few minutes. Now let's read the above. Which sounds more plausible to you - the scenario with god (for which there is no proof) or the scenario without god (for which some proof exists)?

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

we can go back to tackle premise one:

1) Existence is infinite or eternal. True non existence has no potential to produce anything Since we can attest that things obviously do exist, existence must therefore be eternal.

You still have a huge chasm between first part of the second sentence and the therefore. I can't find the bridge you used. The logic does not follow. It is a most classic example of a non sequitur. "Potatoes grow in the ground, therefore I mushroom water."

Hi Davin

If you read my last post to Moondrain, I explain by example how one cannot rationally avoid an infinite series of past events (and hence showing how existence is therefore eternal).

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew - I know that being a god-whalloper does strange things to the brain, but it really is amazingly simple to quote a post. Just click the "QUOTE" button in the botton right hand corner of the post you want to quote - then type your drivel below the box of quoted text.

*sigh* - but I suppose correcting quotes is more interesting than reading your endless stream of horse piss.

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

As I said in a previous post, the nothingness is, of itself, unstable and doesn't need an agent to create a universe. This has been shown to be true under laboratory conditions.

Not that it matters to my argument, but as a point of fact there are no experiments which show that true nothingness - in the sense of absolute non-existence) is unstable. At best the type of experiments you are citing always have at least a gravitational field acting on a 3 dimension space, over time (i.e. space time). This is not "non-being" or "non-existence", so empirical support for non-existence is unstable does not exist - it is a faith based claim.

mondrian wrote

Eventually, it gave rise to a universe which, because of probability, just happened to be 13.7 billion years ago.

As I said in my last post, it makes no sense that quantum effects (which simply exist as a fact of nature) which rarely give rise to universes, would begin their work at any point in time, such as 13.7 billion years ago. One would rather predict a infinite series of multi-verses instead.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

Mondrian

Your assertion above, which I for the sake of argument can agree with, only seems to support my argument so I don't see what the problem is??

Lets say that the instability of non-existence is a brute fact, not a one off, but rather a continuing event as you propose.

Then why did the instability (i.e. 0 -> +1, -1 and process's like it) only appear to BEGIN to exist 13.7 years ago.?? Even if these types of events are rare.. lets say it takes a zillion zillion billion trillion events before an event takes hold to produce a universe, than maybe the process began lets say 20 billion years ago.

The point is.. that the quantum process should not have a beginning if it exists as a brute fact.

By positing a beginning, this opens up the problem of what triggered the first quantum event, and then what triggered that, and then what triggered the trigger (to infinitude).

Hence no matter how one slices the issue, by your proposal one is stuck with the realization that something (e.g. quantum events or the triggers leading to them) have always been occurring - hence, no matter how rare quantum effects beget universes, there should be an infinite number of universes over an infinite period of time, and hence cosmic evolution predicts development of a supremely high alien power which learns eventually to avoid decay and defeat attack (hence achieves immortality).
.

Aww, fuck me Andrew, just when I though I was getting through to you, you then disappoint.

0 -> (+1) + (-1) DIDN'T begin 13.7 billion years ago. I never said it did. It was a continuous process. It just happened to be that 13.7 billion years ago, due to probability, the continuous process gave rise to the universe.

It's illogical to talk about when the continuous process began because, before the universe existed, time didn't exist.

I'm sorry if this is a difficult concept to grasp but that's time for you. Time only exists if space exists and before the universe existed space didn't exist. If space didn't exist before the universe existed, then neither did time.

Therefore, anything that you discuss before the creation of the universe cannot be attributed a time component because time simply didn't exist.

Before the universe existed, nothing existed, not even time. The nothing was unstable of itself. 13.7 billion years ago, the instability gave rise to the universe. No god needed.

It's that simple.

[mondrian]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Davin

If you read my last post to Moondrain, I explain by example how one cannot rationally avoid an infinite series of past events (and hence showing how existence is therefore eternal).

Andrew, look here. Before the universe existed, time didn't exist. If time didn't exist, then eternal is an illogical claim.

Now, before you post any more, go and read up on the space-time continuum and come and talk to us when you have a grasp of the concept.

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

Hi Davin

If you read my last post to Moondrain, I explain by example how one cannot rationally avoid an infinite series of past events (and hence showing how existence is therefore eternal).

No where in premise 1 do you mention infinite regress, so I don't see how that will solve the giant logical leap that everyone will have to make in order to accept premise 1. Right now it's a non sequitur: the logic does not follow.

But let's take a look at what you just said:
"[...]one cannot rationally avoid an infinite series of past events[...]"

How about we just go with what we know instead of assuming things about things we do not currently have the ability to know? We know that the universe as we know it started about 13.5 billion years ago, what we don't know is exactly how it started or where it started from. The honest answer is to simply say we don't know, the better answer is to say that we should fine out... the worst answer is yours: to pretend that simply thinking about it a lot is as good as scientific discovery.

[Andrew66]

mondrian wrote

It's illogical to talk about when the continuous process began because, before the universe existed, time didn't exist.

I'm sorry if this is a difficult concept to grasp but that's time for you. Time only exists if space exists and before the universe existed space didn't exist. If space didn't exist before the universe existed, then neither did time.

Therefore, anything that you discuss before the creation of the universe cannot be attributed a time component because time simply didn't exist.

I'm afraid its not quite the simple Mondrian,

There is absolutely no proof, or evidence which suggests that "time" in and of itself did not exist in some sense prior to our universes beginning some 13.7 billion years ago.

When Stephen Hawking and other physicists say that "time" began at the big bang, they are only referring to our universe's space - time. As physicists cannot observe anything prior to the big bang, they consider it irrelevant to physics - so they declare big bang (for the sake of their observations and equations) to be T = 0. Many physicists actually wonder about whether time existed before the big bang and some wish to study the possibility.

Additionally, as a point of theory, if a quantum fluctuation ignited the big bang, than time must have preceded the event as quantum fluctuations are probabilistic events which occur only as a function of time.

Moreover, all the multiverse theories (which Atheists often rely upon in defense against Theistic fine tuning arguments) all suppose that time existed before the big bang - and that our universe is certainly not the first and only universe - but a string of many - if not an infinite set.

So my argument as presented cannot be disqualified based on an unfounded assertion that time cannot exist prior to big bang.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

the multiverse theories

I don't think this means what you think it does.
Look up 'conjecture' or wild assed drunken guesses.

[Andrew66]

Davin wrote

I don't see how that will solve the giant logical leap that everyone will have to make in order to accept premise 1. Right now it's a non sequitur: the logic does not follow.

A non sequitur premise is one where the conclusion may be true, or may not be true.

Please explain how if "existence", or "change", at any point in time did not exist (i.e. was non-eternal) that we would find ourselves in our present state of affairs? A nonexistent state, especially without change would remain fixed forever, giving rise to nothing.

Davin wrote

How about we just go with what we know instead of assuming things about things we do not currently have the ability to know? We know that the universe as we know it started about 13.5 billion years ago, what we don't know is exactly how it started or where it started from. The honest answer is to simply say we don't know, the better answer is to say that we should fine out... the worst answer is yours: to pretend that simply thinking about it a lot is as good as scientific discovery.