telerion

I've used the second part of this argument (the "then there seems no . . ." part) many times in discussions. It probably come from my economics background, but I can't help thinking

1) Rational Agent
2) Utility increasing in saved people
3) Unconstrained (by omnipotence)


Therefore this world (including all the evils) must be the world he most prefers above all others.

Now turning to free will. Why didn't he just make a world where every person that existed chose freely to serve him?

Usually the xian will cry foul. "That's not free will then! If you know what we will do then it's not free will."

I love when they do that because then I can always go right into the omniscience vs. free will problem. Once they get a taste of that they usually retract their above statement. If not, then I point out that it makes their "free will" choice contingent upon at least one other person not choosing god. That should be enough to raise a red flag about the "free" in "free will." If not then I point out that there is always at least one person who under other circumstances could not have chosen to serve god.

While no xian has ever presented me with a harmonization, one potential way could be to say that god always values another willing saved person more than he disvalues an additional unsaved person. Then one could argue that all these unsaved people we see had to be around so that person X could be born into the conditions such that X freely chose god. Given what we know about god, he should choose to always create more people so long as at least one future person will be saved. If he ever reaches a point when the infinite stream of future people would all choose not to serve god, then he should stop.

Personally I find the above very fishy, but if you're clinging tightly to a sinking worldview, then I guess it could be attractive.

RAFH

Ah, the "man knows naught what lies twixt heaven and earth" apology. Just because air can not be seen does not mean one cannot see and feel and hear its effects. These are simple to demonstrate. Just as glass can't be seen, its presence can be demonstrated. This is really the oldest twaddle ever. "Oh, nobody believed in radio waves back then." Yes, but radio waves could be explained and with relatively simple equipment, demonstrated to exist, even back then.

Your hypothetical being "beyond the relative world of space-time-matter-energy that we experience" may indeed exist, but there's no effects we can determine to suggest such. Air has such effects, so do radio waves (as in light) which is what led to their description. Can you offer examples of the effects of your being? Effects we can investigate?

Until you do, we can dispense with the notion. It does not explain anything. Its just an imaginary friend.


There is nothing about Big Bang that absolutely prohibits time prior to that event. However, the event did, as far as is known, destroy any possible information from any previous existence. So, for all purposes, time did begin with the Big Bang.

As for 10 dimensional universe, I recommend the following website
http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php
as an excellent description in lay terms about how and why there are 10 dimensions. Then again, I have it on good authority those 10 dimensions are actually 12 if one defines a dimension as a descriptor of positional state. By this thought, we live in 6 dimensions: x (length), y (height), z (depth), t (time), orientation about the z axis in the xy plane and orientation about the x axis in the yz plane.

If one included the expansion of space, that would be 13.

RAFH

Heartily so abused I might add.


That depends on whether your discussion leans to the gustatory or the venal.


No, imaginarily.


Uh-uh, its the headbanging that does that.


Jumbalaya.


Yes, it is.


Oh, that KitKat bar, I was thinking of this ranch outside of Reno. It offers sweets of a different kind, often just as gooey in the heat.


Marvel comics does it for me.

hsweet

RESPONSE TO RAFH



I would not want to try to conceive a person from the medieval period of the reality of radio waves. That such exist would be way out of his world view. This is the reason that I chose this comparison.


As we get to the finer level of the material universe as probed by Quantum mechanics we find the relationships between these elements strongly contrasts with our normal understanding. It is reasonable to ask what is their source and what is that nature of that source.

We are going beyond the physical here so the realm of physics is in the rear view mirror now.

The modality is now subjective experience. This should not be seen as invalid. The process is available to all and the word is transcendence.
As this is not something that can simply be understood via an intellectual discussion, the confirmation is left to experience.




reasonable answer.

Thanks, I may poke around there. the reason for my reference to this was to bring to mind what our intellects have not had the exeprience of dealing with.

LGM

Yes. It would appear we've entered...The Twilight Zone.

At what modality do we lose "subjective experience"?

I was told the word is jumbalaya.

LGM

Is a KitKat "matter" before it is eaten? Then "energy" afterwards? Does it no longer exist in space-time once it is digested, expelled in a turd, and flushed?

As a KitKat approaches the speed of light, in a part of the universe beyond my event horizon, does it still make sense to ask what time it will get here?

And does this all become incomprehensible at the KitKat quantum level?

Do KitKats still taste good if you eat them one quark at a time?

I really wish god would help clear some of these questions up, instead of telling me not to eat shellfish.

Doug Shaver

So, God is undefineable?

How do you tell the difference between an undefinable entity and a nonexistent entity?

RAFH

"... would not want to try to conceive a person ... ... of the reality of radio waves." What does that mean? Maybe try less hard with the language. Just say what you mean: "you wouldn't want to try to explain the reality of radio waves to someone of medieval times." So what? That's not the point. It ain't happening anyway. The point is if I were to approach Galileo, I am certain I could convince him. Or even Imhotep. Any person with the ability to learn would do. Of course, if they are so blinded by their commitment to an imaginary friend, there's no point. The issue is whether as you said, "air did not exist because it could not be seen." Being seen is immaterial, there are other senses so your argument is invalid.


Excuse me, your argument was "air did not exist because it could not be seen.", I was the one that introduced radio waves, primarily because its so much more esoteric than just air. Enlightenment is enlightenment. If its there, it can be shown.



But you are not positing something that has effects we experience, you are positing something that might be there despite there being no effects. You are positing Russell's Teapot. Something that could be there we just can't experience it. Despite looking for over 2000 years, its not shown up. You see, that's how science works, it builds its knowledge. With religion, we don't see any building, just tearing down and evaporation. There is less evidence of god now the there was 2000 years ago. With every current scientific knowledge, there is more evidence every day. If it comes to the point where the evidence begins to be overturned, torn down, evaporated, that knowledge is abandoned in favor of that which does grow and become fuller and richer.

The very reason we know of and are investigating the effects of Quantum Mechanics is there were effects which could not be explained with what we knew. Experiments returned results that did not confirm the existing models. Repeatedly. That's a clear sign in science the existing model has problems and needs revision or even refutation. So the search went up for a new model that would explain the effects better and more reliably than the old model.

Newton didn't come up with gravity and then figure out the experiments to validate it. There were numerous obvious problems with the existing models, they did not work. So he did experiments and gave it much thought, what sort of model would produce those results.

Can you say any of this for your conjectured being? Is there some effect which is not explained adequately by the current models (other than your wanting there to be some such being) for which a model including such a being does explain?

This ultimately is the meaning of Occam's Razor, don't produce solutions that are not needed. Its also the damning evidence for gods and the supernatural, what do they do that natural models do not? What do they add? How do they improve the results?


I think most will find that a very good and sensible, almost intuitive discussion of 10 dimensional space. It does not require any but the most basic math and spatial awareness. I'd like to see the argument made the other way and see how it stops at 4 (or 6).

Yahzi

You're not the only one to reach that conclusion:

Yahzi

Once I realized you meant "convince," I understood that your problem is simply a lack of acquaintence with the facts.

Read this letter by Lucian of Samosata and see just how thoroughly modern in sensibility and tone it is, despite being almost two millenia old.

Explaining radio waves to Lucian would be a heck of a lot easier than explaining evolution to Kent Hovind.