4 of 4
4
Poll
is there a good way to defend the three arguments?
no 8
yes 2
agnostic 1
Total Votes: 11
You must be a logged-in member to vote
Existence - Arguments about Him- that square circle
Posted: 02 January 2011 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

Write4U, indeed!
Existence is all there is - the Metaverse, and so no transcendental God can perforce exist!
I understand that Bohm’s is the minority view, but to which the astute atheologian Quinten Smith adheres.

 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2011 02:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

Theists use the arguments from incredulity and from ignorance.
  Leibniz asks incredulously why is there something rather than nothing when absolute nothingness is absurd, and the answer God as why answers in ignorance.
 
  Why do order and regularity and the laws of Nature act if not for God ask incredulously theists when to the contrary He would depend on them to act such that He could not be that Primary Cause!
  Why do we see matter in motion they ask incredulously if not for Him, but the argument from ignorance ignores how evolution and other forces act without direction as the teleonomic argument observes.
 
  In spite of pogroms and the Shoa, they incredulously ask why have Jewry survive, but the logical and the evidential arguments from evil dispose of that, and furthermore, they themselves and others caused their survival.

  How could Yeshua have been resurrected they ask incredulously with that other argument as the answer when he didn’t as no one can provide evidence that he did so.How could he have performed his miracles if not for God when they were natural or did not happen.
 
How can we ground morality they ask incredolously, but that lover of death for atheists, Plato eviscerates that in the Euthyphro. We ground it in experience and consequences and our evolved moral sense.
Please add other examples!

[ Edited: 02 March 2011 03:01 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 March 2011 06:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

It has been proven that density increases mass and potential energy. Black holes are evidence.

Assuming that before the Beginning there was no time, no matter, no energy. The only property of the pre condition of reality being potential (latency). An infinite metaphysical soup of potentials. This metaphysical condition of pure potential (latent energy) may well be the uncaused causality of physical reality.
If this condition of infinite potential is compressed into an infinitely small singularity, the density of potential in this singularity reaches a “critical metaphysical mass” (for want of a better analogy). When this critical mass in metaphysical potential is reached it MUST inevitably express itself in energy. The BIG Bang was the first and possibly only mega quantum event, releasing and realizing all pure potential at the same instant in one incomprehensible energetic event, creating the physical universe. As quantum in a physical universe is restricted to SOL, it takes an almost infinitely small amount of time for reality to be able to become manifest and all subsequent chronological quantum events “needed” time to become manifest in reality. Thus time was necessarily created from the demands of universal evolution through quantum.

IMO, while this may be an over-simplification, the premise of such a possible uncaused causality seems entirely plausible to me.

[ Edited: 02 March 2011 06:27 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2011 10:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Write4U - 02 March 2011 06:15 PM

It has been proven that density increases mass and potential energy. Black holes are evidence.

Assuming that before the Beginning there was no time, no matter, no energy. The only property of the pre condition of reality being potential (latency). An infinite metaphysical soup of potentials. This metaphysical condition of pure potential (latent energy) may well be the uncaused causality of physical reality.
If this condition of infinite potential is compressed into an infinitely small singularity, the density of potential in this singularity reaches a “critical metaphysical mass” (for want of a better analogy). When this critical mass in metaphysical potential is reached it MUST inevitably express itself in energy. The BIG Bang was the first and possibly only mega quantum event, releasing and realizing all pure potential at the same instant in one incomprehensible energetic event, creating the physical universe. As quantum in a physical universe is restricted to SOL, it takes an almost infinitely small amount of time for reality to be able to become manifest and all subsequent chronological quantum events “needed” time to become manifest in reality. Thus time was necessarily created from the demands of universal evolution through quantum.

IMO, while this may be an over-simplification, the premise of such a possible uncaused causality seems entirely plausible to me.

Whynot: The problem with this is that sans time, matter and energy…there’s nothing to derive a “property” from. What I can’t fathom is why we’re so hung up on “beginnings” at all? Mayhaps reality has always existed in one form or another and the concept of existence necessitates both a time and place to exist…thus infinite regress is the only logical solution. There was never a “time” when “energy” didn’t exist. From that point forward you can elaborate on the various classifications of energy as in “potential” and the various “actual” expressions in gravity, electro-magnetic, strong and weak nuclear, mechanical, thermal, etc. The baseline is mass in “momentum” from which we derive velocity and a host of other relevant theoretics. I personally see time as an infinite aspect of reality with “incremental time” being a human construct based on momentum of specific heavenly bodies.  Ergo, with infinite regress…timewise…you have no need for explanations amounting to uncaused causalities. Nor any additional constructs of “purpose” and random happenstance is just a product of human ignorance. An interpretation we apply when we don’t have all the relevant facts.

So basically there are two philosophical percepts we must learn to embrace to make any empirical progress:

1. A certain degree of ignorance, (as Heisenbergs Un-certainty Principle), is abosuletly essential to sustain any degree of indeterminism and freemindedness.

2. Infinite regress, in as much as all modeling eventuates in infinities without the additional insertion of stopgaps and cheaters in the math. The evidence is overwhelming but human arrogance is equal to the task…eh?

And BB theology is not supported by observation, requiring too many unprovable sub-theoretics in the models that have, as yet, remained undiscovered, (cause they likely don’t exist), like dark matter, dark energy, inflation, accordance models, etc.

[ Edited: 03 March 2011 11:07 AM by whynot ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2011 12:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26

Whynot,
There was never a “time” when “energy” didn’t exist. From that point forward you can elaborate on the various classifications of energy as in “potential” and the various “actual” expressions in gravity, electro-magnetic, strong and weak nuclear, mechanical, thermal, etc.

I disagree with that. As energy expresses itself in quanta there is indeed a infinitely small increment in time (quantum suspension)when there is no energy. This is the condition of potential (latency) and was the condition before the First quantum event.
Potential is latency and can be present under any given condition, independent from time, matter or energy.
It is the scientific name for God (without intelligence).

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2011 03:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  151
Joined  2010-08-01
Write4U - 03 March 2011 12:15 PM

Whynot,
There was never a “time” when “energy” didn’t exist. From that point forward you can elaborate on the various classifications of energy as in “potential” and the various “actual” expressions in gravity, electro-magnetic, strong and weak nuclear, mechanical, thermal, etc.

I disagree with that. As energy expresses itself in quanta there is indeed a infinitely small increment in time (quantum suspension)when there is no energy. This is the condition of potential (latency) and was the condition before the First quantum event.
Potential is latency and can be present under any given condition, independent from time, matter or energy.
It is the scientific name for God (without intelligence).

Whynot: I’ve just completed a search on “quantum suspension”. Nothing turned up so there doesn’t appear to be any such phenomenon. Also “infinitely small increment in time” is contradictory and meaningless. If it is infinitely small it cannot be defined as an increment, else it loses its infinity and becomes finite, in which case it then becomes susceptible to the same ontological principles as any other existent phenomenon. If you are trying to define something about “potential” that defeats infinite regress you’re going to need different terms by which to articulate. Sorry, I’m not trying to bust your chops, but to offer constructive criticism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 March 2011 06:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
whynot - 03 March 2011 03:23 PM
Write4U - 03 March 2011 12:15 PM

Whynot,
There was never a “time” when “energy” didn’t exist. From that point forward you can elaborate on the various classifications of energy as in “potential” and the various “actual” expressions in gravity, electro-magnetic, strong and weak nuclear, mechanical, thermal, etc.

I disagree with that. As energy expresses itself in quanta there is indeed a infinitely small increment in time (quantum suspension)when there is no energy. This is the condition of potential (latency) and was the condition before the First quantum event.
Potential is latency and can be present under any given condition, independent from time, matter or energy.
It is the scientific name for God (without intelligence).

Whynot: I’ve just completed a search on “quantum suspension”. Nothing turned up so there doesn’t appear to be any such phenomenon. Also “infinitely small increment in time” is contradictory and meaningless. If it is infinitely small it cannot be defined as an increment, else it loses its infinity and becomes finite, in which case it then becomes susceptible to the same ontological principles as any other existent phenomenon. If you are trying to define something about “potential” that defeats infinite regress you’re going to need different terms by which to articulate. Sorry, I’m not trying to bust your chops, but to offer constructive criticism.

Oh, I welcome discussion on PotentiaL.  Your observation are well taken.
This is a layman’s paradigm (I know), but when the concept of a metaphysical pre-condition to reality (i.e God or Deity) is raised, I believe that the generic definition of Potential conceptually addresses the same condition, save for intelligence and intent, but very possibly defendable in science.

“Infinitely small increment in time” is incorrect. It was posed in relationship and restrictions of SOL, but I should have qualified it as an almost infinitely small time increment (quantum @ SOL).

My basic premise is that it takes time to complete a quantum event. Obviously it cannot occur in the same space at the same time.
Thus even in a condition without time, time will be created by the quantum event and the time it “takes” (creates) to manifest itself in the next physical reality.

The connection with quantum “suspension” is speculative. I visualize quantum suspension as “in between” the old physical reality and the new reality created through quantum. Quantum cannot happen at faster than SOL, thus physical reality itself is restricted by SOL. While we can observe particles which potentially exceed SOL, they immediately cease to exist as physical reality as they cannot reproduce through quantum.  I believe this concept is fundamentally connected with the way things happen and the evolution of physical reality itself.

This would also answer the question of infinite regression. If there can be a timeless pre-condition to physical reality, infinite regression becomes moot.

But this is a fledgling paradigm and I am wide open for any and all critiques or suggestions.

[ Edited: 03 March 2011 06:34 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 April 2011 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  39
Joined  2010-06-11

William Lane Craig speaks of actual and potential infinities. He cannot fathom that by successive addition, that potential infinity is the actual one as one never finds an end to it [ He begs the question of a starting point.], else it wouldn’t be an infinity! Then again, Here I might err as yesterday I learned that there does exist actual, completed infinities. Nevertheless, WLC and other Kalam defenders just commit one fallacy after another as is the case with theists [ ” Logic is the bane of theists.’ Skeptic Griggsy
    As even Aquinas states, ti’s one day after another for eternity, as Kyle Williams states.
    As energy fields, the quanta in accordance with the law of conservation are eternal, implying therefore an eternal Metaverse.
    The Angeles’^ infinite regress argument stresses that cause, event and time presuppose previous ones. What then for the Primary Cause?
  Per the Euthyphro, God depends on morality to do good, and per Lamberth’s teleonomic argument, God cannot be God,because no intent enters any scene as far as creation, evolution and so forth. He would depend on natural laws so that again, He cannot be that Primary Cause. And per the presumption of naturalism, natural causes and explanations themselves are efficient, primary necessary, and sufficient : they themselves are the sufficient reason and that necessary being! Theists must adduce evidence ot overcome this presumption that Fkew ignored in his dotage, having earlier made it a key naturalist argument!
colossal one is why something rather than nothing exists. That is absurd!
Study Bede Rundle ” Why is there Something rather than Nothing.”
I also desire good suggestions!

  ^ Peter Adams Angeles ” The Problem of God: a Short Introduction,” yet a mine of arguments. There also comes the Reichenbach argument from Existence as Existence is all there is and thus no transcendental being can possibly exist.


  posts 267

[ Edited: 23 April 2011 04:01 PM by Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. [griggsy ] ]
 Signature 

[size=6][/“size][color=redLife is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning>” Inquiring Lynn
      ” God is in a worse condition than the Scarecrow, who had a body to which a mind could enter whilst He has neither. He is that married bachelor. No wonder he is ineffable. ” Ignostic Morgan
” Religion is mythinformation.” An Englishlman.
  ” Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.” Griggsy[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 07:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-09-26

[                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          color=The final analysis is that per Lamberth’s reduced animism argument, theism is just that , as superstitious as full animism. Both and polytheism depend on intent. Per, the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument no divine intent appears, so without that intent, God cannot be Himself, and thus no more effective than the many spirits.
            Aquinas superfluity argument argues that people should not add God to explanations as they suffice. The argument boomerangs on him, with his silly,five failed arguments. And it joins the Lamberth ignostic-Ockham argument that He is uslesly redundant as noted above.
              Percy Bysshe Shelley maintains;” To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions- laws- of Nature, S.K.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for.” To then claim that this is a metaphysical claim,thus a category mistake on my part, begs the question.
              People murder others in the name of this silly,superstitious superfluity!
              This ridiculous superfluity explains my gnu atheism!
              Lamberth’s the Malebranche Reductio notes how Nicholas Malebranche claims that when we hit the eight ball, God is the actual hitler!
            This reductio reduces to absurdity that superfluity!
              Let’s explore the arguments!
     
      Oh, how big a landslide for Obama-Biden will occur?
      [/color]

[ Edited: 27 September 2012 07:19 PM by SkepticGriggsy-Carneades ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 September 2012 09:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4626
Joined  2007-10-05

Did you forget to take your meds, Griggsy?

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 September 2012 04:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14
SkepticGriggsy-Carneades - 27 September 2012 07:08 PM

[                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          color=The final analysis is that per Lamberth’s reduced animism argument, theism is just that , as superstitious as full animism. Both and polytheism depend on intent. Per, the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument no divine intent appears, so without that intent, God cannot be Himself, and thus no more effective than the many spirits.
            Aquinas superfluity argument argues that people should not add God to explanations as they suffice. The argument boomerangs on him, with his silly,five failed arguments. And it joins the Lamberth ignostic-Ockham argument that He is uslesly redundant as noted above.
              Percy Bysshe Shelley maintains;” To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions- laws- of Nature, S.K.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for.” To then claim that this is a metaphysical claim,thus a category mistake on my part, begs the question.
              People murder others in the name of this silly,superstitious superfluity!
              This ridiculous superfluity explains my gnu atheism!
              Lamberth’s the Malebranche Reductio notes how Nicholas Malebranche claims that when we hit the eight ball, God is the actual hitler!
            This reductio reduces to absurdity that superfluity!
              Let’s explore the arguments!
     
      Oh, how big a landslide for Obama-Biden will occur?
      [/color]

Griggsy there is a rule against “sock puppetry” on this site. You are only allowed to have a single username, and now I see you have THREE, as well as one old one that has already been banned because you no longer use it. For now I am banning your old usernames, and frankly getting tired of having to deal with new usernames for you. Further rule violations may lead to permanent banning. Thanks.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2013 01:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-09-26

Thanks, Doug. The only reason for all those is that when I didn’t post here for awhile and come back. I had to start all over. Oh, the first time, you helped me. Anyway, lordgriggs is the only one that will appear from me. I’ve had this problem elsewhere, even with my blogs at wordpress.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 February 2013 01:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2012-09-26

Doug, and others, is the Malebranche a good reduction to absurdity or not? Theists claim that God is the primary cause, and Malebranche with his occasionalism states that in effect our being secondary causes are nothing to the point as God is the real cause, which I take as the only efficient cause, we being just having the thought it seems   to me now.
      I now call the superfluity argument the Aquinas-Shelley superfluity argument as I the latter’s description instead of Aquinas’s similar one. As Flew notes, Aquinas implicitly tries to overcome the presumption of naturalism, what he calls the one of agnosticism.
      I’ve come across other arguments to which I give the proponent’s names. As for mine, I make explicit what is implicit.
      Anyway, we naturalists have more than the argument from evil.
      I meant SkepticGriggsy- Carneades as lordgriggs is the password name. Sorry.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4