| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Freshwater Spaceman" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2005 06:26:03 AM |
| Object: |
Proof for Supremre Being |
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
It is a metaphysical statement about causality. Causality is embedded
in science - without it there could be no order. If everything just
happens randomly, there is no relationship between the events and
therefore there is no order possible. Physics claims otherwise. It
better claim otherwise because if it didn't there would be no such
thing as Physics.
That causality is embedded in the physical universe is almost
self-evident. The fact that there are truly random aspects of physical
reality that come from quantum mechanics, like the precise time when a
redioactive atom will decay, does not mean the event is totally
acausal. Even though the time of the decay is unknowable according to
quantum mechanics, and therefore appears to happen randomly, does not
mean that the process responsible for decay is acausal. In fact,
because the process responsible for decay is subject to the
Schrodinger Equation, which itself if deterministic (causal) because
it used Unitary operators, guarantees that the underlying process for
radioactive decay is most definitely causal.
Now, it's time to make the leap from physics to metaphysics. That
means we move from the everyday world of physical events to the level
where we try to understand the most fundamental underpinnings of those
events. The most fundamental underpinning is Existence - Being - ESSE.
Without ESSE things would not exist.
We then postulate that just as physical causality is in operation so
is metaphysical causality, that things which exist are caused to
exist. That is, things don't just happen to exist in an acausal sense
- they are caused to exist. This is consistent with the picture
provided by quantum field theory whereby particles come into existence
from the quantum vacuum by the action of so-called creation operators,
and they go out of existence by the action of so-called destruction
operators. An electron, for example, comes about when two fluctuations
of the electromagnetic field of precisely the right frequency collide.
These photons disappear and an electron appears.
Thus quantum mechanics supports the ontological necessity of causality
at the level of existence. Electrons don't just happen - they are
caused, and most importantly their very Existence is caused.
OK, now that we have this issue of causality worked out, albeit in
very rudimentary form, we can move on. Either you accept causality at
the ontological level or you do not. I cannot prove it to you - that's
why it is axiomatic. You either consider it to be intuitively obvious
upon casual inspection or you consider it absurd. If you consider it
absurd and believe things come into existence without cause, then you
must accept that order is not possible, and therefore you cannot exist
as a separate entity in your random world. IOW, if you reject
causality, even at the ontological level, you cannot prove that you
exist. So why am I attempting a conversation with you?
2) The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence.
Why not?
If the Universe were the source of its own existence then it would
have to have Existence as part of its essence. An object cannot be the
cause of an effect unless it possesses the principle (power) for that
effect. If the Universe is the cause of its own Existence, then it
must have Existence as part of its essence.
But if that were the case then the Universe could not be mutable.
Having Existence as part of its essence, it would be forced to exist
as originally specified in its design. And once it came into existence
as a particular entity with a particular nature, it would have to
continue in the same way - it could not change because Existence
forces it to be what it is and not something different.
But we know that the Universe is mutable, therefore it cannot have
Existence as part of its essence and cannot be the source of its own
existence.
3) Therefore there must be an separate entity which is the source of
the existence of the Universe.
So what is the source for this entity?
The Supreme Being is the only entity in reality whose essence is
Existence. It is Pure Being. It is the cause of all existence,
including the Universe.
The Quantum Vacuum comes close to satisfying that requirement but we
still do not know enough because the Planck length is so small. In any
event if you want a physical analog to the Supreme Being it would be
the thing that causes the quantum vacuum to exist and behave the way
it does.
If the Universe can not be it's own source
of existence,
then it follows that neither could this entity.
That does not follow because you are assuming that the only thing that
can exist is the physical universe. But that is not true. There must
be a higher order or the Universe would not exist - could not exist.
If you are going to make an assumption that anything that
exists must have another source,
I am not making that assumption. I am accepting the fact shown to us
by science that all effects have a cause. But I did not say "another
cause". There is the entity that causes itself. That entity cannot be
material like the Universe for the exact reason that the Universe
cannot be the source of its own Existence. The Supreme Being is
completely different from the physical order, albeit imitmately
connected to it in the sense that the very existence of the physical
order depends on the Supreme Being every instant of time.
then it follows from the same logic that
God can not be his own source. Otherwise, your assumption about the Universe
is inconsistent with the rest of your arguement.
Your major premise is fatally flawed.
4) That entity must have existence as its essence.
Circular logic.
It is not circular.
5) That entity is called the Supreme Being.
Nothing circular there.
Except that your conclusion is based totally on unfounded and unsupported
assumptions,
You have not been paying attention.
which assumptions you then ignore for that entity.
The physical order is not the same as the metaphysical order.
In short your argument is based on assertion
Backed up by physics.
and is internally inconsistent since it
denies the very assumptions you make to establish the argument.
You are confusing the physical order with the metaphysical order.
Existence, Being, Esse - the principle of existence, is metaphysical.
It's what makes metaphysics what it is:
http://www.utm.edu/research/ie p/a/aristotl.htm#Metaphysics
+++
For Aristotle, the subject of metaphysics deals with the first
principles of scientific knowledge and the ultimate conditions of all
existence. More specifically, it deals with existence in its most
fundamental state (i.e. being as being), and the essential attributes
of existence. This can be contrasted with mathematics which deals with
existence in terms of lines or angles, and not existence as it is in
itself.
The axioms of science fall under the consideration of the
metaphysician insofar as they are properties of all existence.
Aristotle argues that there are a handful of universal truths. Against
the followers of Heraclitus and Protagoras, Aristotle defends both the
laws of contradiction, and that of excluded middle. He does this by
showing that their denial is suicidal. Carried out to its logical
consequences, the denial of these laws would lead to the sameness of
all facts and all assertions. It would also result in an indifference
in conduct. As the science of being as being, the leading question of
Aristotle's metaphysics is, What is meant by the real or true
substance? Plato tried to solve the same question by positing a
universal and invariable element of knowledge and existence -- the
forms -- as the only real permanent besides the changing phenomena of
the senses. Aristotle attacks Plato's theory of the forms on three
different grounds.
First, Aristotle argues, forms are powerless to explain changes of
things and a thing's ultimate extinction. Forms are not causes of
movement and alteration in the physical objects of sensation. Second,
forms are equally incompetent to explain how we arrive at knowledge of
particular things. For, to have knowledge of a particular object, it
must be knowledge of the substance which is in that thing. However,
the forms place knowledge outside of particular things. Further, to
suppose that we know particular things better by adding on their
general conceptions of their forms, is about as absurd as to imagine
that we can count numbers better by multiplying them. Finally, if
forms were needed to explain our knowledge of particular objects, then
forms must be used to explain our knowledge of objects of art;
however, Platonists do not recognize such forms. The third ground of
attack is that the forms simply cannot explain the existence of
particular objects. Plato contends that forms do not exist in the
particular objects which partake in the forms. However, that substance
of a particular thing cannot be separated from the thing itself.
Further, aside from the jargon of "participation," Plato does not
explain the relation between forms and particular things. In reality,
it is merely metaphorical to describe the forms as patterns of things;
for, what is a genus to one object is a species to a higher class, the
same idea will have to be both a form and a particular thing at the
same time. Finally, on Plato's account of the forms, we must imagine
an intermediate link between the form and the particular object, and
so on ad infinitum: there must always be a "third man" between the
individual man and the form of man.
For Aristotle, the form is not something outside the object, but
rather in the varied phenomena of sense. Real substance, or true
being, is not the abstract form, but rather the concrete individual
thing. Unfortunately, Aristotle's theory of substance is not
altogether consistent with itself. In the Categories the notion of
substance tends to be nominalistic (i.e., substance is a concept we
apply to things). In the Metaphysics, though, it frequently inclines
towards realism (i.e., substance has a real existence in itself). We
are also struck by the apparent contradiction in his claims that
science deals with universal concepts, and substance is declared to be
an individual. In any case, substance is for him a merging of matter
into form. The term "matter" is used by Aristotle in four overlapping
senses. First, it is the underlying structure of changes, particularly
changes of growth and of decay. Secondly, it is the potential which
has implicitly the capacity to develop into reality. Thirdly, it is a
kind of stuff without specific qualities and so is indeterminate and
contingent. Fourthly, it is identical with form when it takes on a
form in its actualized and final phase.
+++
An amusing thread i came across - opinions?
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.guns/browse_frm/thread/a1507c050ad9a536/06a0b7032d6fc2e9?lnk=st&q=God&rnum=10&hl=en#06a0b7032d6fc2e9)
.
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:36:09 PM |
|
|
Hi Charlie,
Just think about it for a moment. Is velocity a non-material or
material thing? Is length a non-material or material thing? Is mass a
non-material or material thing? Is time a non-material or material
thing? Is energy a non-material or material thing? A these things are
non-material. None of them is physical. Yet physics does not exist
unless physical things are explained in terms on non-material things.
They are emergent qualities totally reliant on material objects.
Velocity is a property of material things that behave in a specific
fashion. They are not things. They are how things behave.
Naming something "emergent" merely extends bias. You choose to call
something "emergent," but there is no objective reality to the concept.
Your view is not inherently better than my view that velocity is a
measurable, non-material example of reality. Also, velocity is
obviously not a property of material things, it is a property of the
environment in which physical things exist. If velocity were a
property of material things, there would not be a universal speed limit
for matter.
If you truely understood physics you would know we only know
relatively few things about matter. Spin, number of protons in a
nucleus. What you can observe is all you know.
All is described by observations of material and its behavior.
You cannot go behind this.
It is interesting that we know all physical matter is made from
electrons and protons, and that modern physics hasn't a clue what
electrons and protons are made from. That says a lot.
The electron and proton do have spin, but they also have electrostatic
charge, mass, and a quantum of angular momentum. We know a lot more
about matter than you realize. And if this data is properly analyzed,
we can determine that the electron and proton also have a type of
charge we could call strong charge, which is the strong force carrier.
Also, if we analyze the data properly, we can determine that the
electron and proton have specific geometries, and due to this special
geometry, they can change shape according to the type of binding (or
lack of binding) they experience. If we analyze the data properly, we
can see that spin is not an inherent quality of the subatomic particle,
but is provided by the environment in which the subatomic particles
exist. We can't go beyond the data, but we can go much futher beyond
our interpretation of the data than what is done in today's physics.
You can measure an electron's spin, but can't say mch more.
Yes, you can. You can measure the spin of the electron and then use
that data to quantify the structure of the environment in which the
electron exists.
You can observe how spin acts in a magnetic field, or such things as a
certain interaction of particles will result in two particles one with an
up spin, one with a down.
Exactly. And from this information you can discern more about the
structure of the environment in which the electron exists.
Science here is descriptive only.
No, science is an investigation, not just a description. The science
can lead to a description, but it is about interpreting the data.
Describing why things happen as they do often cannot be done.
Are you implying that I was saying "why" things happen? Or was that
just an extra thought you wanted to throw in to the discussion to
derail the topic?
It does not help to say it is because of god or demons, or leprechauns
or the music of the spheres.
Why you should say that George Washington was a bad influence on
Benjamin Franklin is beyond me.
Saying "material, immutable existence is necessary to give rise to
physical particles with physical characteristics" doesnt make it true.
Its not true. Energy and negative energy do that.
Energy doesn't do a damn thing. You were just telling me that velocity
is just an "emergent" quality. Well, energy is exactly the same order
of reality is velocity; it is merely a unit of work, as opposed to a
unit of motion. There is no such physical thing as energy, nor can
energy be directly measured.
Paul Dirac figured that out 75 years ago, predicted
negative particles like positrons and virtual particles,
all confirmed in the laboratory
A negative particle is an electron or antiproton. I think you meant to
say that Dirac predicted antimatter? As for "virtual" particles, you
need to make up your mind. Is it a particle, or is it not? You won't
believe that non-material existence created physical existence, but you
believe in "virtual particles?"
Use some common sense here (even though it is forbidden in physics), if
the concept sounds like magic, then there is something wrong with the
interpretation of the data. There are no virtual particles. Either it
was a photon, electron, proton, positron, or antiproton, but it wasn't
a virtual particle. If the particle popped into existence in one
place, then it was created, even if another particle popped out of
existence somewhere else. Once again, physical existence is observed
as manifesting from non-material existence. Misinterpreting the data
does not change that fact.
Where is your evidence that the physical Universe is
made from physical matter?
Energy in form of quarks and gluons.
Not goddons and angeltons.
Energy is not a thing, it is a unit. Quarks have never been
independently observed. And what's this nonsense about force
particles? What is a particle of force? How can force be a particle?
And you think the idea of a non-material Creator sounds irrational or
unproveable! You might not be talking about goddons and angeltons, but
you do talk about color forces and flavor forces. You might as well be
talking about fairies and goblins. If science is about that which is
observed, then can all the nonsense and get back to real science.
You have absolutely no evidence that the Universe is made from physical
matter, other than that's what you call it. Yet, you have the balls to
tell me that I can't use physics to prove the physical Universe has a
non-material source.
Divine Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:49:37 PM |
|
|
"David Thomson" <google@volantis.org> wrote in message
news:1124836569.881304.234630@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Energy is not a thing, it is a unit. Quarks have never been
independently observed.
Loathe though I am to point to a new scientist link
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18725121.800
indicates your assertion may not be valid for ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 06:42:34 PM |
|
|
Loathe though I am to point to a new scientist link
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18725121.800
indicates your assertion may not be valid for ever.
-->IT WAS a true clash of the titans. In the blue corner: a
multimillion-dollar
-->particle accelerator. In the red: one of the world's most powerful
-->supercomputers. Both were battling to pin down the lifetime of an
ephemeral
-->subatomic particle known as the D-meson. Their deadline was 30 June.
-->Two days ahead of their target, the 20 or so theorists behind the
-->supercomputer announced their answer. For 48 nail-biting hours,
-->they waited for their rival's result. They knew that if their
numbers tallied,
-->the supercomputer approach would have what it takes to revolutionise
our
-->understanding of the subatomic world. So when the 150-strong team at
the
-->accelerator finally announced that its answer matched, the theorists
were
-->over the moon.
You should have followed your instincts. Do you really think this
sounds like solid science? A scrimmage race between two different
groups? Now you've gone from virtual particles to virtual data. How
low will modern science stoop?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 07:16:02 PM |
|
|
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Charlie,
Just think about it for a moment. Is velocity a non-material or
material thing? Is length a non-material or material thing? Is mass a
non-material or material thing? Is time a non-material or material
thing? Is energy a non-material or material thing? A these things are
non-material. None of them is physical. Yet physics does not exist
unless physical things are explained in terms on non-material things.
They are emergent qualities totally reliant on material objects.
Velocity is a property of material things that behave in a specific
fashion. They are not things. They are how things behave.
Naming something "emergent" merely extends bias.
its only a bias towards truth and reality. the only bias worth
having.
You need to look up the concept of the falasity of reification.
Things like mass, velocity, acceleration are not Things.
They do not exist as seperate from things. You make talk
about them in abstract terms, but they still do not exist
except when things exist and have these qualia as part
of them, aspects of phyical things, not things in and of
themself.
If you can't figure this out, you might as well babble
about fairies and brownies.
They don't make sense either but sound like they do.
Cheerful Charlie
You choose to call
something "emergent," but there is no objective reality to the concept.
Your view is not inherently better than my view that velocity is a
measurable, non-material example of reality. Also, velocity is
obviously not a property of material things, it is a property of the
environment in which physical things exist. If velocity were a
property of material things, there would not be a universal speed limit
for matter.
If you truely understood physics you would know we only know
relatively few things about matter. Spin, number of protons in a
nucleus. What you can observe is all you know.
All is described by observations of material and its behavior.
You cannot go behind this.
It is interesting that we know all physical matter is made from
electrons and protons, and that modern physics hasn't a clue what
electrons and protons are made from. That says a lot.
The electron and proton do have spin, but they also have electrostatic
charge, mass, and a quantum of angular momentum. We know a lot more
about matter than you realize. And if this data is properly analyzed,
we can determine that the electron and proton also have a type of
charge we could call strong charge, which is the strong force carrier.
Also, if we analyze the data properly, we can determine that the
electron and proton have specific geometries, and due to this special
geometry, they can change shape according to the type of binding (or
lack of binding) they experience. If we analyze the data properly, we
can see that spin is not an inherent quality of the subatomic particle,
but is provided by the environment in which the subatomic particles
exist. We can't go beyond the data, but we can go much futher beyond
our interpretation of the data than what is done in today's physics.
You can measure an electron's spin, but can't say mch more.
Yes, you can. You can measure the spin of the electron and then use
that data to quantify the structure of the environment in which the
electron exists.
You can observe how spin acts in a magnetic field, or such things as a
certain interaction of particles will result in two particles one with an
up spin, one with a down.
Exactly. And from this information you can discern more about the
structure of the environment in which the electron exists.
Science here is descriptive only.
No, science is an investigation, not just a description. The science
can lead to a description, but it is about interpreting the data.
Describing why things happen as they do often cannot be done.
Are you implying that I was saying "why" things happen? Or was that
just an extra thought you wanted to throw in to the discussion to
derail the topic?
It does not help to say it is because of god or demons, or leprechauns
or the music of the spheres.
Why you should say that George Washington was a bad influence on
Benjamin Franklin is beyond me.
Saying "material, immutable existence is necessary to give rise to
physical particles with physical characteristics" doesnt make it true.
Its not true. Energy and negative energy do that.
Energy doesn't do a damn thing. You were just telling me that velocity
is just an "emergent" quality. Well, energy is exactly the same order
of reality is velocity; it is merely a unit of work, as opposed to a
unit of motion. There is no such physical thing as energy, nor can
energy be directly measured.
Paul Dirac figured that out 75 years ago, predicted
negative particles like positrons and virtual particles,
all confirmed in the laboratory
A negative particle is an electron or antiproton. I think you meant to
say that Dirac predicted antimatter? As for "virtual" particles, you
need to make up your mind. Is it a particle, or is it not? You won't
believe that non-material existence created physical existence, but you
believe in "virtual particles?"
Use some common sense here (even though it is forbidden in physics), if
the concept sounds like magic, then there is something wrong with the
interpretation of the data. There are no virtual particles. Either it
was a photon, electron, proton, positron, or antiproton, but it wasn't
a virtual particle. If the particle popped into existence in one
place, then it was created, even if another particle popped out of
existence somewhere else. Once again, physical existence is observed
as manifesting from non-material existence. Misinterpreting the data
does not change that fact.
Where is your evidence that the physical Universe is
made from physical matter?
Energy in form of quarks and gluons.
Not goddons and angeltons.
Energy is not a thing, it is a unit. Quarks have never been
independently observed. And what's this nonsense about force
particles? What is a particle of force? How can force be a particle?
And you think the idea of a non-material Creator sounds irrational or
unproveable! You might not be talking about goddons and angeltons, but
you do talk about color forces and flavor forces. You might as well be
talking about fairies and goblins. If science is about that which is
observed, then can all the nonsense and get back to real science.
You have absolutely no evidence that the Universe is made from physical
matter, other than that's what you call it. Yet, you have the balls to
tell me that I can't use physics to prove the physical Universe has a
non-material source.
Divine Dave
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 08:35:02 PM |
|
|
Naming something "emergent" merely extends bias.
its only a bias towards truth and reality. the only bias worth having.
Bias has no place in science. It is science that determines truth and
reality, not bias.
Things like mass, velocity, acceleration are not Things.
That's funny. If we were trying to prove the validity of E=mc^2, you
would say that mass and energy *are* things, as evidenced by solar
radiation, nuclear power plants, and nuclear bombs. Hypocrite.
Physical reality is defined by what can be measured. You can measure
mass, velocity, and acceleration. But you can't measure *things.* Try
to measure an electron without measuring its mass, velocity, or
acceleration. There is no other way to identify *things* other than by
their dimensions and units.
You make talk
about them in abstract terms, but they still do not exist
except when things exist and have these qualia as part
of them, aspects of phyical things, not things in and of
themself.
You are saying that mass, velocity and acceleration to not exist except
when *things* exist. But you have no method of determing whether a
thing exists except by measuring its dimensions and units. You're eyes
deceive you. Physical existence begins with non-material dimensions
and units acting through immutable electrons and protons. There is
nothing else. Atoms, molecules, cells, minerals, planets, humans,
trees, everything is nothing more than electrons and protons in a
certain pattern.
And since you cannot prove that electrons and protons are made from
physical matter, you have absolutely no proof that the world you see is
indeed physical. And if it weren't for the immutability of the
non-material dimensions and units, you wouldn't have any way at all to
perceive the so-called physical world to begin with.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PLaToPeS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 01:17:41 PM |
|
|
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
[snipalot]
But even if you existed for all eternity, you still cannot be the
source of your own existence or else you would always be the same kind
of being that you were for all eternity. You could not die, for
example. You could not grow, for example. But that is not how it works
- you will die one day, you did grow from an embryo to an adult.
Therefore you cannot be the source of your own existence.
[snipalotmore]
Above applies only to the "meat-package" - the machine what hosts the
ghost. No telling what accounts for the world of thought.
Matter is a prison. Would we be better adapted to our environment if
we existed as pure energy? Sentience-in-meat form may be but a step in
our evolution.
As to figuring out all of existence using the puny tool of human
logic, good luck with that...
PLaToPeS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Schoenfeld" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 07:07:49 AM |
|
|
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
Now, it's time to make the leap from physics to metaphysics.
No, now is the time to leap from nonsense to basic physics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 08:07:33 PM |
|
|
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
Its the return of "Sweet Old Bob"
Also known as:
Sweet Ol' Bob (SOB) s...@sob.com
Dr Bob r...@houston.rr.com
Dark Magus
You posted the same stuff in 2001 (and possibly earlier - research is
in progress) - you havent answered the obvious objections to your ideas
back then - why would you do so now?
It is a metaphysical statement about causality. Causality is embedded
in science - without it there could be no order. If everything just
happens randomly, there is no relationship between the events and
therefore there is no order possible.
Physics claims otherwise. It
better claim otherwise because if it didn't there would be no such
thing as Physics.
That causality is embedded in the physical universe is almost
self-evident. The fact that there are truly random aspects of physical
reality that come from quantum mechanics, like the precise time when a
redioactive atom will decay, does not mean the event is totally
acausal. Even though the time of the decay is unknowable according to
quantum mechanics, and therefore appears to happen randomly, does not
mean that the process responsible for decay is acausal. In fact,
because the process responsible for decay is subject to the
Schrodinger Equation, which itself if deterministic (causal) because
it used Unitary operators, guarantees that the underlying process for
radioactive decay is most definitely causal.
Now, it's time to make the leap from physics to metaphysics.
This is where you go astray.
That
means we move from the everyday world of physical events to the level
where we try to understand the most fundamental underpinnings of those
events. The most fundamental underpinning is Existence - Being - ESSE.
Without ESSE things would not exist.
And since things do exist then there is existence.
We then postulate that just as physical causality is in operation so
is metaphysical causality, that things which exist are caused to
exist.
Individual things have their individual causes - but "existence" itself
is not a thing that requires a cause.
That is, things don't just happen to exist in an acausal sense
- they are caused to exist.
Correct, but you then go on to confuse "things being caused" and
*existence itself* being caused.
Without existence there can be no cause - existence *precedes* cause
and therefore it is nonsensical to wonder at the cause of existence.
<snip - physics of electrons etc>
OK, now that we have this issue of causality worked out, albeit in
very rudimentary form, we can move on. Either you accept causality at
the ontological level or you do not.
I accept causality - if specified carefully enough.
For example the "cause" of a decaying uranium nucleus is that it has an
excess of energy. The rate of decay of a population of uranium atoms is
determined (to high precision) by the height of the coloumb barrier and
fundamental physical constants - mass of electron etc.
It is a physical impossibility to pick which particular nucleus is
going to decay and when - but when it does decay the "cause" of its
decay is that it had an excess of energy.
I cannot prove it to you - that's
why it is axiomatic. You either consider it to be intuitively obvious
upon casual inspection or you consider it absurd. If you consider it
absurd and believe things come into existence without cause, then you
must accept that order is not possible, and therefore you cannot exist
as a separate entity in your random world. IOW, if you reject
causality, even at the ontological level, you cannot prove that you
exist. So why am I attempting a conversation with you?
You can accept causality (specified carefully enough) - and reject that
existence itself has a cause and be 100% self consistent.
Existence is ontologically *prior* to causality - to speak of a cause
of existence itself is therefore absurd.
Now please precede to ignore me again - wouldn't want to spoil your
track record.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 09:42:17 AM |
|
|
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
[...]
If the Universe were the source of its own existence then it would
have to have Existence as part of its essence.
[...]
Oh, another kooky "essence" guy. Maybe you ought to go take your meds.
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 10:28:38 AM |
|
|
Dave wrote:
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
[...]
If the Universe were the source of its own existence then it would
have to have Existence as part of its essence.
[...]
Oh, another kooky "essence" guy. Maybe you ought to go take your meds.
Or the same one under a different name.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Freshwater Spaceman" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 10:59:32 AM |
|
|
I left a link on my last post, the person is a regular contributor to
usenet.
(http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.atheism/msg/5045f2351dee48c9?hl=en)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tomcat" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 04:20:33 PM |
|
|
I read the post by 'Sweet O'l Bob'. I found it interesting, but not
very informative. He said that things exist therefore there must be
pure existence.
Things do exist. They are all around me. And, yes, some do act sort
of . . . mutable.
For a thing to be a thing there has to be 'thingness'. Thingness is
what the thing is. Thingness is what ties the properties of a thing
together. A coffee cup, for example, consists of it's shape, color,
size, and material. If something else has a different shape, color,
size, and material then we say it is a 'different' thing.
Drop the coffee cup and it becomes: broken glass.
But what happened to the . . . 'thing'? Did it become a different
thing, i.e., do coffee cups have souls? Did it cease to exist? Is it
still there, but invisible? Did it go to heaven?
The frightening thing of all this is that our bodies are things too.
And, what happens to us? Decay, rot, or . . . worse? Nothing like
being mutable!
Well, when we said the coffee cup was a thing what were we saying? We
were referring to the relations of certain properties, namely, shape,
color, size, and material. The coffee cup had form.
This form was in what we saw and used as a coffee cup. Or, was it?
I buy another coffee cup and it is a different color, but the size and
shape are the same. This particular coffee cup is made of ceramic,
however. So, coffee cup is still around.
The one I used to have went into the garbage.
Our bodies are a lot like that. Good heavens!
The glass coffee cup I had no longer exists. The new one is made of
ceramic. The general notion of coffee cup then did not go away, just
the particular one I dropped.
Something remained throughout the change -- Coffee Cup, with capital
letters, because it is the general notion that I am referring to.
The old coffee cup had changed everytime one of it's atoms had an
electron movement, which was quite frequent. It remained despite at
least some change. Maybe 'my old glass coffee cup' is in the same
place that Coffee Cup hangs out. But where is that?
Let's see. If it isn't here, then it must be . . . there! But where
is . . . there?
It must be in Coffee Cup heaven! Of course, why didn't I think of that
before?
Coffee cups can be different shapes, colors, sizes, and materials. So,
Coffee Cup, the general notion (universal) is not specifically any
particular shape, color, size, or material. It is different: no form,
no color, no size, and no material. But it exists enough for me to
say, "look, I have a new coffee cup."
The old friendly, familiar, well loved, glass coffee cup that I once
had, is not 'out there' in the world anymore. I could look and look,
and see many, many things but never run across it. I remember shoving
the broken glass onto the dustpan, and it long since went to the
landfill.
If Coffee Cup, and possibly my old well loved cup, isn't 'out there'
then where could it (they) be? Neither seem to be 'right here' either.
My old cup is gone, and I doubt if Coffee Cup could hold water, much
less steaming hot coffee.
Only one more place. It (they) are inside . . . me. It also means I
am not a body. I am . . . something else.
If I am not my body then I must be the same thing as Coffee Cup which
has it's place within me. And, if Coffee Cup is in me, then how do you
know of Coffee Cup? Been peeking?
You mean my body is an existing particular thing, but I am not? I
identify with my body. I know, I know, 'Identity' has no size either
and it is in me too. My God! Everything is in me.
What am I! I can't support a Universe. I have trouble getting up in
the morning, putting my slippers on and all that. But, that is my body
too, I guess.
If permanence is in me and I -- as separate from my body -- is
permanent too, then I am the place that doesn't exist. I don't exist?
But I am here. My body hasn't decayed yet! Ok, ok, I am not really my
body . . . and I got Coffee Cup to prove it.
What am I then?
In the words of William James: "I cannot think of a better reason for
there being a world then that it was willed to be."
tomcat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PLaToPeS" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 02:03:35 PM |
|
|
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
[snip]
Congratulations! You have (not) proofed a supremre being.
1.) What is a "supremre being"?
2.) When can I expect to receive my personal enrolment kit?
3.) What kind of sandwiches should I bring ?
PLaToPeS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Puppet_Sock" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 02:02:51 PM |
|
|
Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
[something or other about a first cause argument for a deity]
It's kind of a thin soup you have, even did one suppose it to
be a valid argument. (Which it does not seem to be.)
What have you proved? The existence of a first cause. What have
you learned *about* that first cause? Not much. You have not
learned whether it has anything to do with, for example, any
of the notions of a god mentioned in any of the versions of
the xtian bible. (Or the Jewish religious writings, or the
writings of Islam, or any of the various forms and sects in
some way related to these.) You've only got "it was first"
and not much else.
It could just as easily be Bog instead of God. And it does
not need to do anything else, or affect anything else, or
even be aware of anything after that first action.
And even if it *is* a deity in the usual meaning of that,
there's no reason it can't be Odin or Rah or Big Juju or
one of the central America or south America deities, or
one of the Pacific islander deities, or one of the Asian
deities, or even one of the north American native deites.
Or a deity that humans have never heard of nor imagined.
In other words, you've got a *LONG* way to go before this
is anything other than sterile psuedo intellecutal
masturbation.
Socks
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Thomson" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 08:30:38 AM |
|
|
Hey Freshwater Spaceman,
You have an exceedingly sharp intellect. Do you have a web site of
further writings?
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 08:53:02 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 22 Aug 2005 04:26:03 -0700, "Freshwater Spaceman"
<Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> let us all know that:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
2) The Universe cannot be the source of its own existence.
Why not?
If the Universe were the source of its own existence then it would
have to have Existence as part of its essence.
It does.
The universe cannot come into or go out of existence. It is
not "mutable".
3) Therefore there must be an separate entity which is the source of
the existence of the Universe.
So what is the source for this entity?
The Supreme Being is the only entity in reality whose essence is
Existence.
Anselm has been refuted to death.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 11:11:53 AM |
|
|
If the Universe were the source of its own existence then it would
have to have Existence as part of its essence.
Such an argument does not support a supreme being.
You are wresling with the structure of the universe and existence.
Aren't these two things synonymous?
One does not rely upon the other.
Existence may have a more local context whereas universe has an
overwhelming context.
When it comes to the structure of either, spacetime seems to be the
accepted platform. This is hardly an abstract concept. It is three
dimensiononal cartesian space with time. This is not a trivial
structure. To impose causality as a lower axiom poses a bit of overlap,
but helps alleviate the conception of time as an additional real
dimension. There is a mathematical construction that begets spacetime
without all of this fuss. It is called polysigned numbers:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
Such a construction proposes that there may be a theoretical basis for
spacetime.
That spacetime need not be postulated but is a mathematical result
should prove productive for theoretical physics when the correct
construction is chosen.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
| User: "1Z" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 10:15:48 AM |
|
|
Tim Golden wrote:
http://bandtechnology.com/PolySigned/PolySigned.html
Have you heard of complex numbers, quaternions, etc ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Golden" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
26 Aug 2005 01:30:14 AM |
|
|
1Z wrote:
Have you heard of complex numbers, quaternions, etc ?
Certainly. The polysigned numbers are far more fundamental than any of
them.
The three-signed numbers are proven equivalent to complex numbers under
sum and product. They generate C by a trick of sign. Not a trick
really, but a rule.
The same rule that governs the real numbers:
Sum( 1 s ) = 0.
That's universal for any system of s signs.
Also the product is defined universally but has a more difficult
representation for a text format. But it codes very cleanly as a
software algorithm.
This means that I have defined an arithmetic product in n dimensions,
where
n = s - 1.
These sums and products follow the traditional rampant rules of the
real numbers:
Associativity, Cummutativity, etc.
But the quotient breaks beyond sign three.
This is exemplified by the rule:
|A||B| = |AB|.
Only s <= 3 satisfies this requirement.
For example in four-signed numbers if I multiply:
( - 2 * 3 # 1 ) ( - 1 * 1 )
I get:
+ 2 # 2 # 3 + 3 - 1 * 1
which is:
+ 5 # 5 - 1 * 1
is:
+ 4 # 4.
There are many more products of (-1*1) that will generate the same
result.
The only cleanly recoverable terms via quotient in the natural series
are below sign four.
Maybe this could come across as a secondary spin axis if it exists at
all.
Somehow, if you buy into polysigned numbers
the product operation is linked to an explanation of spacetime.
Most force laws involve products.
But it is a bit beyond me how all of this will come together.
-Tim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 06:54:48 AM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2005 04:26:03 -0700, "Freshwater Spaceman"
<Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> wrote:
:
Causality is embedded in science...
:
The rest of your screed relies on this false assertion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
24 Aug 2005 11:15:28 AM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2005 04:26:03 -0700, "Freshwater Spaceman"
<Interplanetary.Pirate@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
There is no argument to fall apart.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:49:49 PM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2005 04:26:03 -0700, Freshwater Spaceman wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jul 2005 13:16:44 -0400, "Scout"
<4...@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
1) The Universe must have a source of existence.
Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to make such an assumption.
That is a crucial step in the argument. Without it the rest of the
argument falls apart.
If there was actually a Supreme Being, do you think there'd be any possible
rational doubt-- or need to argue-- about it?
--
You want a job and a lizard to ride?
< _The Einstein Intersection_
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 05:16:04 PM |
|
|
The Supreme scientist of the universe
Creator of science
If the universe has a begining it has a beginer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 06:03:43 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124748964.650347.115890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Supreme scientist of the universe
Creator of science
Who created him?
If the universe has a begining it has a beginer.
"If."
Stop repeating your self Nick.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 06:44:36 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1124748964.650347.115890
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
The Supreme scientist of the universe
Creator of science
If the universe has a begining it has a beginer.
Non sequitur.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
22 Aug 2005 07:44:39 PM |
|
|
No sequitur you mean!!!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:31:31 AM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2005 15:16:04 -0700, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme scientist of the universe
Creator of science
If the universe has a begining it has a beginer.
If the beginner had a beginning, then ipso facto, the beginner has a
beginner.
And so on, in a meaningless endless loop...
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 07:04:27 AM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:pkulg1hkd2g9vhs7f6fu6il1d6iuik7vfv@4ax.com...
On 22 Aug 2005 15:16:04 -0700, "Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote:
The Supreme scientist of the universe
Creator of science
If the universe has a begining it has a beginer.
If the beginner had a beginning, then ipso facto, the beginner has a
beginner.
And so on, in a meaningless endless loop...
Nick misses the point about how his "Beginner" needs a beginner.......
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:02:48 PM |
|
|
Its simple. God wasn't created.
That's why he's God.
He's Uncreated Creating.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof for Supremre Being |
23 Aug 2005 05:43:01 PM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124834568.015970.58010@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Its simple. God wasn't created.
That's why he's God.
No you are simple.
He's Uncreated Creating.
The Universe wasn't created, that's why it is the universe - its the
Uncreated Universe.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
