Npower101

Ill make it easy without writeing a mini-novel. GOD does not exist.

HelenM

Don't I know it!!

Is there a 'short posts only' forum?

Oh, never mind. As soon as there was I'd want to post something long in it, I suppose.

love
Helen

Jobar

Npower101, I agree with you- but I also enjoy the precise and subtle attempts that E-muse and Rainbow Walking are making to "screw the inscrutible". Some subjects cannot be properly explored in less than novel length.

E-muse, I call myself an atheist/pantheist. I think that *if* there is any meaning to the word 'God' it must be, at minimum, infinite. All the other attributes- omni-whatever- must come after this. And we can't talk about infinity meaningfully. So all attempts to speak about an infinite God are doomed to fail, because we humans have not infinite time or infinite knowledge. We *can* declare that some things are contradictory or paradoxical- omnibenevolence in a world where evil exists, for instance.

We can talk about God however we want- but to extract any meaning from this talk, we must anchor somewhere *within* observable reality. And so far as I can see, there is no anchor anywhere for the concept 'God'. (Thus I call myself atheist.)

Yet, when we observe the universe around and within us, all our observations and measurements seem to approach infinities. In physics and mathematics, we see seemingly unending vistas in all directions. Although we cannot measure or describe it completely, the universe/multiverse is most easily explained as an infinite system.

And if both God and the universe are infinite, it makes sense to me to say they are identical. I observe myself to be inextricably a part of the universe, and since my observations lead me to believe the universe is infinite, in some manner, shape or form, so am I. (Thus I call myself a pantheist.)

I am personally trying to figure out where consciousness fits into all this. If the universe is self-observing, then we can safely say that there is an infinite consciousness- and that is something we could safely call 'God'.

[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

E_muse

Hello again RW,

Please forgive me if some of your quotes seem a little over-snipped.. I am trying to conserve space!

Only if the quantum vacuum had a beginning does it require a cause.

My main problem with the theory is that it either requires imaginary time or a universe that has either 10 or 26 dimensions.

Agreed.

The mind and logic are also things that exist within this universe and are themselves governed by its laws.

We therefore do not know that they have any descriptive power for anything that might exist beyond the universe or that pre-existed it .. or indeed, both.

But as I keep saying, their ontological connection is only known to exist in this universe. The concepts that you describe are only known to exist in this universe and are only known to describe this universe. They have no descriptive power for anything outside, beyond or before it.

Methodological naturalism works on the assumption that the natural world is all that there is. In this regard, it can describe physical causal relationships in a way that theology doesn't even attempt to. I don't see them as being in conflict.

However, I don't think that this approach is able to predict everything that actually happens because it is limited to that which can be tested empirically.

So, would you say that the claim that God created the universe is not ontologically connected with reality? The phrase, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" were written before the idea that the universe needed a cause had any ontological defensibility.

You've agreed with me that the universe must have had a cause. In the Bible, God is first put forward as the necessary first cause of the universe (before such a notion had any ontological defencibility). So how can you say that the concept has no ontological connection with reality?

Also, something can only be considered ontologically connected to reality or meaningful once it is experienced. Therefore experience informs what we should consider axiomatic, not simply logical possibility.

If you insist that arguements about something must be internally consistent in order for it to be considered real, you're saying that any objectively real entity must be fully understandable and explainable in an internally consistent fashion in order to be considered real. Therefore you are making objective reality subservient to the mind.

However, this is foolish. The universe obviously existed before we could explain it in any logical fashion or before we could offer any consistent explanation for it.

The fact that explanations about the universe are broken down into partial theories proves that we are still unable to explain the universe in any internally consistent way.. yet we have no doubt that it exists ..... because we experience it.

We only consider something 'real' when we experience it. We only consider something axiomatic to existence when we experience it. We do not judge the actuality of something upon its logical defensibility, otherwise we would have to argue that we should consider the universe as non-existent during the time we were unable to explain it consistently.

You've separated logic from the imagination. Where does logic exist if not in the imagination? Imagination can simply refer to our ability to confront and deal with reality using the creative power of the mind. What is logic if it is not simply a product of the mind's creative power?

Can logic increase our 'experience' of reality?

So are you suggesting that, in a universe that is permeated with conflict and change, that the mind can remain absolute when it itself is a part of that universe?

How are our minds 'free' when they are entities that exist as part of a changing universe and are goverened by its natural forces?

I was referring to your arguements for anything that may have pre-existed the universe.

How about funding scientific approaches grounded upon a design hypothesis?

Which would have the greater likelihood of expanding my 'experience' base?

I don't think its simply a matter of what is 'logically' possible, but what is possible .. full stop. Otherwise we limit our scope of what we might be able experience to that which we are able to understand.

However.. a definition of presupposition from dictionary.com:

Looking at this, your invocation of existence/time prior to the universe is presuppositional according to 2 above.

Of course, you could probably say your invocation of existence/time is a logical possibility rather than ontologically necessary. However, I would remind you of what you said on page 2 of this debate:

If you are now only claiming existence/time as a logical possibility then you seem to have diminished the nature of your claim.

And as I've already said ad nauseum, logically necessary is not the same as ontologically necessary.

People are happiest when they can explain their experiences in a meaningful way. I know many people who are quite happy to accept things without understanding them.

But the power of a method of explanation is subject to experience, not the other way around. Your above comment underlines what I am trying to say. Methodological naturalism (which is what I assume you are referring to) is considered reliable on the basis of experience.

You're asking me to answer an unknown. You're now asking me to explain the world as it isn't, not as it is. Would scientific research exist if people believed that the universe existed by chance?

I think that this depends upon your experiences.

Logical possibility in reference to anything in this universe is not mere fantasy.. I haven't said this. My question centred around the relationship between logic and any alleged pre-universal state.

But wherever we go in the universe (note: in the universe, time will always be an attribute of the universe itself. It cannot be experienced any other way.

Everything that exists as a physical part of this universe requires energy, time and matter. Once you remove the universe I don't think that there is any rational basis for saying that matter, time or energy exist either.

They cannot be considered axiomatic to reality if the 'reality' we are talking about is any pre-universal state.

Why is it so funny?

Isn't it your wish to explain the origins of the universe in a logically coherent way without reference to God?

Isn't any arguement you present with regard to the pre-universe an imagined event. If it isn't then please demonstrate how it isn't.

Where does your need to make explanations about the universe logical come from if not your psychology? Earlier you said:

You suggest that a particular methodology (based on logic) is there to protect our sanity. What is this if it is not psychological need?

I don't think so. Science can only examine that which exists within this universe. All the phenomena we observe are only known to exist within this universe. How can it then make any statement on what may have caused it?

But remains fantasy until verified... when it is found to be something more than what exists in the head.

We cannot make the universe subject to logic because there is no one theory that explains everything. Our understanding is incomplete, even on the logical, naturalistic level and therefore reality cannot be made subject to our rules of logic.

And what we consider to have existence is limited by our breadth of experience.

And if logic may not apply to any pre-universal state, it is therefore an unreliable tool in describing such a state.

But you've already argued that logic (of which induction is a part) may have no validity before the universe. So why presuppose that induction can bring us anywhere?

Not just one event no. And I wouldn't only include my own experiences.

God isn't just self-evident to an individual.

How do you know that God can't be experienced?

All I've said is that, once you accept that the universe has a cause with no perceptual verification for such cause, you accept that something existed (and may still exist) outside of the universe. I use outside in the sense that it may not have existed before it because there there may be no time outside the universe.

That is, the space-time manifold exists as a single entity and that energy, matter, space and time are all qualities of the space-time manifold. The universe is a finite entity.

Any attempt to explain what caused the universe break down hopelessly because our powers of reason and logic exist within this universe and there is no logical basis to accept that we can know everything.

Rw: And where exactly did I present this as a MUST or as a logical necessity? Logical possibility, yes, necessity, no.

O.K. Allow me to re-word the question.

However, you've yet to demonstrate why I should consider it logically possible to believe anything must exist prior to the universe that is only known to exist as part of it.

That is, taking your point that logic may be incapable of explaining anything prior to the big bang.

But you've also admitted that logic may have no descriptive power with regard to a per-universal state. It could hardly be described as superior in reference to this could it?

But earlier you said:

Which is it RW?

But the causal relationships you describe relate to realities within this universe. Of course your above analogy is true and founded upon reliable axioms that have meaning within this universe.

However, you've already say that logic may not apply to any pre-universal state.

How would you establish the existence of God? I suggest through experience.

Well, this is exactly my point. You are the one who is trying to establish the nature of the pre-universal state on logical possibilites.

A God who only exists in the mind may as well not exist at all. He would only ever be a description of reality but would have no power to change it.

You've already argued that logic may not be applicable to any pre-universal state.

When we refer to existence, the term is always used in connection with things that are known to exist in this universe. How could we derive the term from anything that wasn't part of our experience RW? The burden is on you to prove that.

Nothing is 100% provable, no.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Jobar,

I deeply appreciate your openess in sharing your beliefs with me. Please take what follows as an examination of your ideas ... not you as a person. I know how it can feel.

Shouldn't that be 'panatheist'?

But the universe appears to be finite. It appears to have had a beginning and is expanding. How could it be doing this and be infinite? Couldn't it be that infinites only exist within the maths?

However, what caused it would not necessarily have to be finite because it would not logically have to be constrained by time. However, trying to conceptualize this is something else!

I think that the fact that we can't conceptualize infinities is clear evidence that it is in fact an attribute absent from our observable universe. If the processes that produced are in some way infinite, and we are in some way infinite (infiniteness is an attribute of the universe and self in some way), then why can't we conceptualize it or speak about it meaningfully? Doesn't it seem strange to you that we can't when you suggest that it is, in some way, an essential part of our being?

By the same token, isn't all talk about an infinite universe and/or infinite self doomed to failure for the same reasons? Yet you go on to suggest that such things might exist.

If 'we can't talk about infinity meaningfully' is true then how can we then go on to discuss an infinite universe or infinite self? If infiniteness is an attribute of the universe and ultimately ourselves AND we cannot speak of infinites meaningfully, any discussion about ourselves and the universe is ultimately doomed to failure isn't it?

In short, you have said that talk about God is doomed on the grounds of his attribute of being infinite. However, you have then suggested that the universe and self are in some way infinite, dooming talk about them to failure because of the way you rejected talk about God.

Does God cease to be good because he creates a world where people have the freedom to decide whether to do good or evil? Is God evil because he can conceptualize evil?

But you've already made it impossible to anchor God to anything because you've already said that God is infinite (that this is the only real term that can be attributed to him) and that we can say nothing meaningful about infinities. Conclusion - we can say nothing meaningful about God.

The fact that something can be described in a particular way *more easily* doesn't make the description true does it?

But then of course, the infinites you describe may only be an artefact of the mathematics being employed in these disciplines that have no ontological counterpart. This is why cosmologists like Stephen Hawking have sought to remove the singularity from the beginning of the universe.

But if you have already said that we cannot talk meaningfully about God on the basis that he is infinite AND he is identical with the universe does this now mean that we cannot talk about the universe meaningfully?

You've already conceded that you do not have infinite knowledge. If you do not have infinite knowledge how do you know that the universe is infinite or that you are in some shape or form? How do you know this without having infinite knowledge? Wouldn't a knowledge of the infinite require infinite knowledge? Isn't this just your own attempt to screw the inscrutable?

I would find it absurd to describe myself as infinite when I am aware of a time when I did not exist, however, I can see how it could appeal to the ego.

I see little evidence that the universe, as a whole, is conscious - or the forces that seem to direct it. However, in the form of man, matter is conscious and asks the meaning and nature of its own existence.

Could non-conscious forces produce consciousness. Can something appear that is absent from the process that caused it?

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

rainbow walking

E: The mind and logic are also things that exist within this universe and are themselves governed by its laws.

We therefore do not know that they have any descriptive power for anything that might exist beyond the universe or that pre-existed it .. or indeed, both.

Rw: Oh really? Let’s test this. If we agree that this universe had a beginning, would it not therefore be reasonable to say that there was a time when this universe did not exist? And if so, that time must therefore have had to exist prior to this universe? Now you see I’ve inculcated both time and existence in a description of what is reasonable and logical to postulate about a pre-universal state.

E: But as I keep saying, their ontological connection is only known to exist in this universe. The concepts that you describe are only known to exist in this universe and are only known to describe this universe. They have no descriptive power for anything outside, beyond or before it.

Rw: Then how do you propose to assemble an argument for a god as the creator of this universe without referencing these two terms, or some derivative of them, in your argument? Would you argue for a god that did not exist in any kind of time frame prior to creating that which does? Without borrowing ontological axioms from my stack have you any rational means of developing an argument of your own. Your argument inculcates an additional concept that has no such ontological connection, thus my argument meets the standard of parsimony whereas yours does not.

E: Methodological naturalism works on the assumption that the natural world is all that there is. In this regard, it can describe physical causal relationships in a way that theology doesn't even attempt to. I don't see them as being in conflict.

Rw: And theology derives from biblical text that definitely asserts causal relationships, (to god), as though they were factual claims. Many of which do indeed conflict with current scientific discoveries about the actuality of our universe.

E: However, I don't think that this approach is able to predict everything that actually happens because it is limited to that which can be tested empirically.

Rw: How can anything be shown to have actually happened if it cannot be tested empirically? Many things can be submitted as having happened, and thus could be taken as possibilities, but any alleged phenomenon must be empirically established to become fact. Some possibilities can be shown to be logical but none become fact until they are shown to be empirically factual. Many similar claims about similar experiences, attributed to a single cause, do not establish the cause as factual. Only when the alleged cause can be empirically verified can it be truthfully established as a valid term or postulate in the formulation of a premise from which any truthful conclusion can be drawn and a rational explanation be said to emerge. To assert otherwise is an ad populum fallacy. If 500 people wandering in the desert and thirsting to death for a drink of water all experience a mirage, that appeared to be a pool of water, their similar experience would not magically transform the light waves, peculiarly refracted by heat from the desert floor, into water. If all 500 of them believed the mirage to be an actual pool of water and rushed to the location, diving upon their faces for a drink, all 500 would come up with nothing more than a mouth full of sand.

E: So, would you say that the claim that God created the universe is not ontologically connected with reality?

Rw: I would, for the reasons given above. Until “god” is properly defined, one might as well be saying *&^%$#@ created the universe. If an incomprehensible and meaningless term is used in a proposition, the claim fails to make any meaningful connection to reality.

E: The phrase, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" were written before the idea that the universe needed a cause had any ontological defensibility.

Rw: And this un-supported assertion begs the question that the phrase was coined to create the idea. It is more likely the phrase was created to fulfill a need that could not, at that time, be ontologically fulfilled so defensibility is irrelevant.

E: You've agreed with me that the universe must have had a cause. In the Bible, God is first put forward as the necessary first cause of the universe (before such a notion had any ontological defencibility). So how can you say that the concept has no ontological connection with reality?

Rw: Because you have not provided us with a meaningful definition of the term “god”. What is the nature of this being you are trying to argue into reality? What is its essence? You are just pushing the ad populum fallacy backwards onto primitive soil. You are asserting that the bible created the notion without providing us any evidence that no such notion existed prior to the bible. You’ve got the wrong end of the horse facing the wagon so I’m just going to sit here and feed the animal until you load the wagon. Are we to assume the bible is true? That it somehow preceded man’s natural inquiring mind with ready-made answers to spoon fed questions?

E: Also, something can only be considered ontologically connected to reality or meaningful once it is experienced. Therefore experience informs what we should consider axiomatic, not simply logical possibility.

Rw: And experience must be defined else it remains inexplicable and produces no knowledge but only fear. Inventing explanations from incomprehensible terms might work if it is rendered plausible enough through borrowing from genuinely ontological connectives to legitimize the rendering, but it doesn’t establish truth or separate fact from fiction. Primitive people were no doubt faced with many more inexplicable experiences than we are today. In the absence of a means of determining a rational cause for their experiences they alleviated their fears by invention.

E: If you insist that arguements about something must be internally consistent in order for it to be considered real, you're saying that any objectively real entity must be fully understandable and explainable in an internally consistent fashion in order to be considered real. Therefore you are making objective reality subservient to the mind.

Rw: Au contrare… they are symbiotic and I do insist that arguments must be based on clearly defined terms else you make the mind subservient to obfuscation.

E: However, this is foolish. The universe obviously existed before we could explain it in any logical fashion or before we could offer any consistent explanation for it.

Rw: Obviously…and why is this foolish? Insisting on terms being clearly defined does not require a pre-concieved knowledge of the universe…unless you are working on an angle that god is indefinable and requires a presupposition to launch your arguments.

E: The fact that explanations about the universe are broken down into partial theories proves that we are still unable to explain the universe in any internally consistent way.. yet we have no doubt that it exists ..... because we experience it.

Rw: And let's just ignore the fact that such theories as are evidenced have proven themselves to be entirely internally consistent such that axioms can be devised. How can you internalize that which you do not yet know? Or how can you know something said to be real that cannot be internalized by everyone capable of knowing?

E: We only consider something 'real' when we experience it. We only consider something axiomatic to existence when we experience it. We do not judge the actuality of something upon its logical defensibility, otherwise we would have to argue that we should consider the universe as non-existent during the time we were unable to explain it consistently.

Rw: Then you misstate my position or you are equivocating mine with your own. Anything said to be real must have actual being to be so, irrespective of your experience of it. If you launch a claim that an experience you’ve had was caused by something real without establishing an ontological connection between the cause and reality, your claim is specious. It remains a posteriori and contingent on your ability to adequately communicate it for epistemological value. Reality, that which has ontological value, has a priori being. I have never been snow skiing so I have never had the pleasure of enjoying this experience but I would never say that snow skiing isn’t real on this basis. I have empirically verified it through observation. Can you say the same for god? Experience divorced from logic does not a sound argument make.

E: You've separated logic from the imagination. Where does logic exist if not in the imagination? Imagination can simply refer to our ability to confront and deal with reality using the creative power of the mind. What is logic if it is not simply a product of the mind's creative power?

Rw: And you must know that we were comparing the value of two terms: logic and fantasy. The above was submitted to isolate logic from fantasy.

E: Can logic increase our 'experience' of reality?

Rw: Can fantasy? If you were locked into the decision making process by circumstances and your decision would determine if you live or die which of the two would you prefer as an ally: logic or fantasy?

E: So are you suggesting that, in a universe that is permeated with conflict and change, that the mind can remain absolute when it itself is a part of that universe?

Rw: I am suggesting that the content of the mind can isolate it from the harmful effects of inexplicable experiences. Why do you think children develop alter egos, split personalities, and invisible friends when thrust into conflicts before their reasoning capabilities have been realized? The mind struggles for autonomy even if it has to divide itself to conquer the inexplicable. I am saying that religion is a much watered down version of this phenomenon E_muse. No offense intended.

E: How are our minds 'free' when they are entities that exist as part of a changing universe and are governed by its natural forces?

Rw: The truth shall make you free.

E: How about funding scientific approaches grounded upon a design hypothesis?

Rw: Is that a logical possibility?

E: Which would have the greater likelihood of expanding my 'experience' base?

Rw: The most logically possible one, for sure.

E: I don't think its simply a matter of what is 'logically' possible, but what is possible .. full stop. Otherwise we limit our scope of what we might be able experience to that which we are able to understand.

Rw: Should we not prefer our understanding to be based upon true explanations of our experiences? Why should we content ourselves with explanations that have no basis in fact?

Presuppose
1. To believe or suppose in advance.
2. To require or involve necessarily as an antecedent condition.

E: Looking at this, your invocation of existence/time prior to the universe is presuppositional according to 2 above.

Rw: Not hardly. Existence and time are axioms that require no pre-supposing for invocation. They are real and verifiably so.

E: Of course, you could probably say your invocation of existence/time is a logical possibility rather than ontologically necessary. However, I would remind you of what you said on page 2 of this debate:

Rw: And now you are grasping for straw. In fact I said they were both, depending on what relation they are being used to the universe. To this universe: axiomatic. In a pre-universal relationship: logical possibility. What am I presupposing about them? They are valid terms. I am not postulating my argument as true or sound only logically possible, so presupposition isn’t required or invoked from my position.

E: If you are now only claiming existence/time as a logical possibility then you seem to have diminished the nature of your claim.

Rw: And once again you are equivocating a post universal validation of the terms with a pre-universal application of them. The above is a comparison of the terms from a post universal perspective. Existence is a valid term that requires no mathematical distinctive. God is an incomprehensible term that even mathematics cannot rescue. I suspect that is why most theists, (especially of the pressuppositionalist persuasion) avoid mathematical constraints being applied to the term. It opens the door for too many un-solicited inconsistencies. Especially when non-contingency has been added to the formula.

E: And as I've already said ad nauseum, logically necessary is not the same as ontologically necessary.

Rw: And axioms are…?

E: People are happiest when they can explain their experiences in a meaningful way. I know many people who are quite happy to accept things without understanding them.

Rw: Really? I know people who accept certain explanations of things because they cannot understand them otherwise and I know people who accept things as they are, because they cannot understand them, but I know of no one who derives any happiness or comfort from this acceptance unless the acceptance itself has been turned into a beneficial thing outside of the explanation. For instance, many people attend religious services simply for the fellowship who don’t know the difference between Genesis and Revelation. They derive their happiness from some intrinsic value associated with accepting the explanation. They loose sight of the trees for the forest. Ignorance is bliss.

E: But the power of a method of explanation is subject to experience, not the other way around. Your above comment underlines what I am trying to say. Methodological naturalism (which is what I assume you are referring to) is considered reliable on the basis of experience.

Rw: Let me restate the above: EXPERIENCE has taught us that methodology increases explanatory power consistent to our reality. So let me ask you a really hard question: What methodology can you establish, based on your experience of god, that will allow all of us to increase our explanatory skills consistent to reality?

E: You're asking me to answer an unknown.

Rw: Oh, come now E_muse, based on your experience, who has contributed more to mankind’s functional base of knowledge: science or the church?

E: You're now asking me to explain the world as it isn't, not as it is.

Rw: The question doesn’t require an explanation unless you wish to submit one…just an honest answer.

E: Would scientific research exist if people believed that the universe existed by chance?

Rw: Certainly, it is in fact science that has identified many of the chance connectives inherent in our universe. Ever heard of the chaos factor? The deterministic attribute of the properties associated with matter doesn’t rule out chance…only renders it less chaotic. Every particle in this universe is affected by its proximity to every other particle and that proximity is determined as much by chance as it is the forces inherent in the particles.

E: I think that this depends upon your experiences.

Rw: You experience an incomprehensible concept as an axiom of this universe? Or do you interpret your experience as such?

E: Logical possibility in reference to anything in this universe is not mere fantasy.. I haven't said this. My question centred around the relationship between logic and any alleged pre-universal state.

Rw: And just because I said logic MAY not apply in a pre-universal state doesn’t translate into my having summarily ruled it out. I’m just not willing to summarily rule it in either. I think MAY is an appropriate term.

E: Everything that exists as a physical part of this universe requires energy, time and matter. Once you remove the universe I don't think that there is any rational basis for saying that matter, time or energy exist either.

Rw: Well, I haven’t finished my research on energy, so that aspect of it may or may not be inclusive. But if we say this universe had a beginning it is both reasonable and rational to say that there must have been a time when it did not exist. Just because time and existence are attributes of this universe doesn’t automatically make it irrational or unreasonable to posit their possible presence in a pre-universal state. In fact, it makes it a logical possibility worthy of consideration.

E: Why is it so funny?

Isn't it your wish to explain the origins of the universe in a logically coherent way without reference to God?

Rw: Not really. I just can’t find any rational or logical reason to include reference to an incomprehensible term in any attempt to establish logical possibilities. If you can define the term into comprehension without contradiction or inconsistency I would be more than happy to consider the possibility of including the term in the mix.

E: Isn't any arguement you present with regard to the pre-universe an imagined event. If it isn't then please demonstrate how it isn't.

Rw: An imagined event doesn’t automatically default to a fantasy. The logical possibility I am defending, though it stems from my imagination, has its basis and foundation in valid terms that are axiomatic to this universe. Any imagined event based on a god cannot register the same claim. Its terminology is incomprehensible and has never been shown to have any basis in this universe without assuming the antecedent.

E: Where does your need to make explanations about the universe logical come from if not your psychology? Earlier you said:

But when our methodology surpasses the inexplicability of our experiences sanity is no longer threatened and our minds are free to contemplate our methodologies. Because our reality is predicated on conflict and change it produces many inexplicable experiences that threaten our mental health.

E: You suggest that a particular methodology (based on logic) is there to protect our sanity. What is this if it is not psychological need?

Rw: I’m sorry E_muse, was there some relevant point you were trying to make…? We all have a psychological need to explain our experiences. But we also have a greater responsibility to see that those explanations are consistent to our reality.

E: I don't think so. Science can only examine that which exists within this universe. All the phenomena we observe are only known to exist within this universe. How can it then make any statement on what may have caused it?

Rw: Well, you tell me how cosmologists make hypothetical statements to that effect. I haven’t presented anything other than a logical possibility. And your response misses the point.

E: But remains fantasy until verified... when it is found to be something more than what exists in the head.

Rw: Logical possibility is greater than fantasy…un-like references to invisible gods with absolutely no basis in reality.

E: We cannot make the universe subject to logic because there is no one theory that explains everything. Our understanding is incomplete, even on the logical, naturalistic level and therefore reality cannot be made subject to our rules of logic.

Rw: Spoken like a true theist. So we can therefore insert god where ever our understanding is lacking…yes. Reality can be classified by logical methods enabling us to explain more realistically our experiences than to just say godunnit. This does, in fact, give us better control over our reality. Praying, fasting, attending religious services, evangelizing and singing in the choir might make us feel better about our deficiencies in our knowledge but they add nothing to eliminate those deficiencies, now do they.

E: How do you know that God can't be experienced?

Rw: If you want me to know start by defining the term and then show how that definition ties in to your experience.

E: All I've said is that, once you accept that the universe has a cause with no perceptual verification for such cause, you accept that something existed (and may still exist) outside of the universe.

Rw: I don’t accept that at all. Perceptual verification to the contrary notwithstanding, there’s no better reason to place the cause outside the universe, (wherever that is) than prior to the universe.

E: I use outside in the sense that it may not have existed before it because there may be no time outside the universe.

Rw: Then we have this something contingent upon this “place outside the universe” to work its magic; a place where no clock can be found. And this “something” you appear to be on the threshold of calling god, but can’t define, (hence the reference to “something”), apparently isn’t a thing in the usual sense either, since it obviously must exist but requires no time to do so.

E: That is, the space-time manifold exists as a single entity and that energy, matter, space and time are all qualities of the space-time manifold. The universe is a finite entity.

Rw: Then this “something”, you hesitate to call god, didn’t require any energy or power to cause this universe to exist since energy is a contingent quality of this universe.

E: Any attempt to explain what caused the universe break down hopelessly because our powers of reason and logic exist within this universe and there is no logical basis to accept that we can know everything.

Rw: I thought that’s exactly what you were attempting. Did I miss something? So if we knew what caused this universe to exist we’d know everything?


E: But you've also admitted that logic may have no descriptive power with regard to a per-universal state. It could hardly be described as superior in reference to this could it?

Rw: And you’ve also stated that you have experienced this god here in this universe, just as I claim to be experiencing time and existence here in this universe, so you’ve got some dots waiting to be connected on the crucial end of making the connection from outside this universe to here within it. The superiority of my position grows in proportion to the illogic of yours. Both of us are hypothesizing our terms into a position prior to or outside of this universe. But I’ve chosen terms axiomatic to this universe, terms that are a known and a given, whereas you haven’t any such footing to rescue you from the slippery slope. God has not been shown to be a valid term so any postulation about causes based on this term cannot assume the conclusion in the terms.


E: But the causal relationships you describe relate to realities within this universe. Of course your above analogy is true and founded upon reliable axioms that have meaning within this universe.

However, you've already say that logic may not apply to any pre-universal state.

Rw: And the analogy is based on the big bang theory which represents a transitional phase between pre-universe and this universe. I never said logic may not apply to the transition itself. Note I’m still not stretching the meanings of terms or inventing special pleading for terms to inch my way backward.

E: How would you establish the existence of God? I suggest through experience.

Rw: But I was hoping you’d offer more than just suggestion.



E: A God who only exists in the mind may as well not exist at all. He would only ever be a description of reality but would have no power to change it.

Rw: And here we have arrived at another of those crucial places where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. What evidence do you offer outside of your mind and say so that these experiences were caused by god? I have no doubt that experiences have the power to change ones perspective of ones reality. That is not the issue. What evidence do you offer that the experiences were caused by a god. That is the issue. People can have good or bad experiences that will change their perspective without attributing them to a god, so what makes your experiences especially unique or attributable to something that you allege exists outside your mind?


E: When we refer to existence, the term is always used in connection with things that are known to exist in this universe. How could we derive the term from anything that wasn't part of our experience RW? The burden is on you to prove that.

Rw: I haven’t derived my terms from anything but this universe. It is you who have introduced and appear to be arguing for a term, without properly defining it, that doesn’t appear to have any basis in this universe. So I would say I have fulfilled my obligation and shouldered my share of the burden and now all eyes are on you my friend.

E: Nothing is 100% provable, no.

Rw: Time and existence are about as close as you can get…yes.

E_muse

There was a point when this universe did not exist.

Not necessarily because it also appears that 'time' also appears to have had a beginning at the big bang. It therefore cannot be categorically stated that time 'must' have existed. The event would have been outside time as we know it.

We cannot envisage a reality without time. I have suggested that this is because we are constrained by our physical minds which are regulated by the laws of this universe.

I personally think it is more reasonable to say that logic breaks down at the big bang and is an inadequate tool for trying to describe anything that may have caused it.

We can say that the 'cause' existed, and outside of time as we know it. But this is probably just about all we can say on the basis of reason.

I have simply referred to 'the cause' of the universe. I have only added to this that the God of the Bible happens to have the properties of said cause. Those being, it is beyond perceptual verification and outside time as we know it.

I think we could agree that these things are true of any cause even though we cannot agree that the cause is God. However, it just so happens that the God outlined in the Bible possesses these qualities.

In what way?

I accept the possibility of events that may be beyond human verification or, by their very nature cannot be tested.

Some things are beyond empirical testing, simply because they have happened in the past. In those situations surely we need a different means of establishing certainty.

All I am saying is that science is not able to predict every possible event in this universe. It doesn't have the right to rule out certain alleged phenomena on the grounds that it doesn't understand it or can't explain it.

This means that we can only accept the reality of anything that it is within our ability to comprehend, explain or reproduce?

And this only highlights that any arguement that you present about the pre-universe is essentially redundant because it can never be empirically established.

I think your example here is extremely hypothetical.

Can't the actuality of an event be established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the reliability of the person recounting the incident?

No. I've argued that any cause of the universe is beyond perceptual verification and outside of time as we know it.

I have gone on to say that God, as described in the Bible, is described as the cause of the universe and existing in a state necessary for any cause.

The term 'God' then ceases to be a completely meaningless term.

The assertion stands. Its claims about the universe are now not completely unsupported.

I hope that this isn't an unsupported assertion RW Where is your evidence for this claim.

Even if it is true, it doesn't make the Genesis claim that the heavens and the earth had a beginning untrue does it?

Defensibility was irrelevant to the originators of the account, because they did not have the scientific means. Defensibility is not irrelevant to us now though.

The point is, ancient man appears to have had a knowledge that both heaven and earth had a beginning.

All I have said is that the cause of the universe is beyond perceptual verification and outside time as we know it. I have then said that God, as defined in the Bible, is presented as being beyond perceptual verification and outside time as we know it. He is also described as being the first cause.

Essentially beyond perceptual verification (in the normal ways understood by science), essentially outside of time as we know it and the cause of the universe. Will that do for starters?

This seems true of whatever caused the universe whether we accept that it is God or not. It just so happens that God, as described in the Bible, is defined in these ways.

I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are saying this RW, not me.

All I have said is, "God, as described in the Bible....". This is hardly the same as saying that the ideas expressed there never pre-existed it! If they didn't pre-exist it, how were the writers able to put them onto paper.

I would suggest that the writings laid out in Genesis existed as a prior oral tradition. Perhaps they then existed as separate written traditions before being collated by a later writer into one document.

I would therefore suggest that they are the earliest available written form of an ancient oral tradition.

However, the main point would be, the stories are much more ancient and certainly predate the time of their first being committed to a written form.

Of course the notion of God existed prior to the Bible. The Bible seeks to describe a time before its own existence! To suggest anything else would be absurd. The Bible stems out of those notions and claimed experiences, not the other way around.

The point is, they reflect an ancient knowledge that the heavens and the earth had a beginning.

No. I am saying that (in terms of the first part of Genesis for the moment), that what is in these passages is a collation of an early oral tradition.

Certainly this happens.

I have said that God is defined as not perceptually verifiable, beyond time as we know it and the first cause of the universe.

These are factors that are true of whatever caused the universe. It just so happens that the ancients describe God in this way, according to the oral tradition that has become Genesis 1 and 2.

Indeed. But until it is experienced, how do you know that it has actual being?

Does it have to be my experience?

O.K. Let me ask the question. How did the ancients possess a knowledge that the universe (as they knew it), had a beginning?

My children have invented Mr Nobody. He does all the naughty things in the house!

I have seen similar things going on in religion and the Church. People do things and call it God.

How do you know when you know the truth?

This doesn't actually answer the question.

This is as much as I can post for the moment. I shall try and respond to more of what you've said but please feel free to comment before I reply further.

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

E_muse

Understanding, yes. However, we are not able to dictate what does and does not happen on the basis of an incomplete understanding.

You have postulated existence as an antecedent. Existence and time are both only axiomatic in this universe and only relate to what we know to exist in this universe. We are seeking to discuss a time when the universe didn't exist!

You are using this universe as a basis for your arguements concerning a time when it didn't exist.

It is mathematics that gives rise to the initial singularity at the beginning of the universe. If anything did exist prior to the universe, science can say nothing about and it can not be considered to have had any influence on the universe. That is why Stephen Hawking seeks to remove the singularity and comes up with the no boundary proposal. This produces a universe that has no beginning and no end and has no boundary. It also involves the invocation of imaginary time. However, the problem with this is obvious. It is imaginary... a fantasy!

If we can say anything about the pre-universe, it cannot come from mathematics.

Mathematics predicts a point of singularity with nothing before the universe being able to influence our present universe.

They just know that being a part of church seems good for them in some way. However, this is an arguement from numbers.

Theistic explanations do not seek to explain physical causal relationships.

My experience is finite in extent and I would never invoke it as a basis for absolute truth concerning the universe.

I am not attempting to ridicule naturalistic explanation. I am merely saying that it is finite in terms of its explanatory power.

Everything that exists has been determined by what came before it.

For many, the concept of God, or some higher power, is axiomatic to their experience. This doesn't make it true. It is simply a matter of fact.

Why does it matter. Why not just concede that we can't know?

There was a point when it did not exist, as time appears to have had a beginning at the point of the big bang.

As our logic is a product of causal relationships within this universe I am not pretending that we can understand this state.

Not if the universe, as we know it, didn't exist.

I think that a reality without time is pretty incomprehensible.

For me the issue is, whatever caused the universe is hard to comprehend and there are problems with seeking to logically defend what it might be. Particularly if logic may not be able to say anything about it.

The pre-universe, by its very nature, is not consistent with our reality.

Some scientists still feel that universal origins are a matter for metaphysics alone. One of the reasons that Stephen Hawking has not received a nobel prize is purely because his science is purely theoretical.

Whatever caused the universe is invisible to us. Everything that forms a part of our reality appears to have had a beginning.

It is also possible that we cannot understand it through logic.

No. We can defend the metaphysical principle that, whatever begins to exist must have a cause. We can see that whatever caused the universe is invisible to us, is outside time as we know it and is logically difficult to determine.

We can see that the ancients had a view of God as an invisible cause, outside of time as we know it and logically difficult to defend.

Praying and fasting, attending religious services etc, is pretty unhelpful if you don't believe in God.

I've started.

If it is 'prior' to, then it is still 'outside'.

I assume you agree that the universe could not have caused itself. Therefore, whatever caused it, existed or exists outside of it in that sense.

Prior, involves time.

Its difficult itsn't it!

Indeed. You earlier suggested that energy was caused.

Logic is finite in its extent .. as is the universe.

I'm saying that, if anything can be known about the origin of the universe, it cannot be known through pure logic (that can only relate to things that are a part of this universe).

The ancients appear to have had a knowledge that the known universe was caused. The basis for their knowledge in this regard appears to be on the basis of an alleged interreaction with that cause in previous history.

I wouldn't disagree with that.

But according to Big Bang theory, anything that pre-existed the universe could not have any influence on it.

That seem to have no scientific conncection with what pre-existed it. However, I do agree that there should be a trace of the pre-universe in this universe. However, it must have some basis in human experience.

At the moment, big bang theory appears to proclude the possibility of physical causal relationship as we understand it.

E: But the causal relationships you describe relate to realities within this universe. Of course your above analogy is true and founded upon reliable axioms that have meaning within this universe.

However, you've already say that logic may not apply to any pre-universal state.

Big bang theory seems to provide no such transition. If anything did pre-exist the universe, it could have had no influence on this universe as we understand it.

The ancients appear to have had a knowledge that the universe was caused. There also appears to be ancient race memory, expressed through oral tradition, that man enjoyed some form of interreaction with that cause, which seem to make sense of their knowledge that the universe had a beginning.

[i]Everything, as we know it, appears to have had a beginning at the big bang. In terms of big bang cosmology, if anything did pre-exist the universe, it could have had no influence on this universe in terms of physical causal relationship. It has no predicitive power.

rainbow walking

E: There was a point when this universe did not exist.

Rw: And “points” especially in this context, always refer to places on a TIME line. If not, then your argument fails to convey any useful information and your “point” becomes a moot issue.

E: Not necessarily because it also appears that 'time' also appears to have had a beginning at the big bang. It therefore cannot be categorically stated that time 'must' have existed. The event would have been outside time as we know it.

Rw: And as I’ve extensively demonstrated time, “as we know it” is contingent upon our KNOWING it in reference to our position in the universe. Change position and time, “as we know it” ceases to be a known and must be reconfigured based upon our new position. The appearance of a beginning for time is purely mathematical, and thus logically derived. But, as you’ve argued dogmatically, logic MAY not apply to the state of a pre-universal existence. Hence, just because we begin to trace time from a specific point does not logically or automatically translate into time as a non-existent factor previous to that point…only that something occurred enabling time to be constructed to our benefit from that point onward.

E: We cannot envisage a reality without time. I have suggested that this is because we are constrained by our physical minds which are regulated by the laws of this universe.

Rw: But you can envisage a god outside of reality, time and this universe?

E: I personally think it is more reasonable to say that logic breaks down at the big bang and is an inadequate tool for trying to describe anything that may have caused it.

Rw: But you have no problem relying on logic to attempt an explanation based on your worldview to defend the incomprehensibility of postulating an un-defined term as a conceptual explanation for this universe.

E: We can say that the 'cause' existed, and outside of time as we know it. But this is probably just about all we can say on the basis of reason.

Rw: What you fail to realize is that this is not an exclusive feature of an “outside this universe”. Time, “as we know it” is relative to our position within this universe. Change positions and time, “as we know it” ceases to be a known or given and must be re-configured to our new position. Time is fluid and un-restrained by our relation to it. “As we know it” is relative to our position within this universe. This limitation does not restrict the flow of time backwards beyond our relation to it. If this were the case WE would be the creators and masters of our universe. Why do you think you have to CHANGE your clocks when you move a specific distance from your present longitude? How is it that we move our clocks forward or back in an attempt to realize some “daylight savings”? Time, “as we know it”, is based upon everyone’s agreement to a standard of knowing it, which is a learned explanation for the experience of it, and relative to our position among the stars. Therefore, if time is relative, there is no logical reason why it cannot be a primary feature of a pre-universal state. “As we know it” becomes irrelevant to the explanation and only serves to establish a basis for observation. This is the fundamental crux of Hawking’s theory of “imaginary time” as well as Einstein’s theory of relativity. Both are logical theories and, by no means, exhaustive. Einstein’s theory is functionally derived from an observation of this universe and Hawking’s is derived from both this universe and a logical extrapolation to reach beneath it.

E: I have simply referred to 'the cause' of the universe. I have only added to this that the God of the Bible happens to have the properties of said cause. Those being, it is beyond perceptual verification and outside time as we know it.

Rw: So are all the other culturally established gods and goddesses that have been endowed with the distinction of having caused this universe. Why do you privilege the Judeo/Christian god as the cause above Zeus, Thor or Dianna? Have you ever heard of the Enuma Elish? It is a Babylonian document that pre-dates any literary reference to the Habiru (Hebrews) by a thousand years and contains a creation account. Then there are the Egyptians, Sumerians, Chaldeans...

E: I think we could agree that these things are true of any cause even though we cannot agree that the cause is God. However, it just so happens that the God outlined in the Bible possesses these qualities.

Rw: Which serves more as a diminishment to his possibility of being actual than it does to establish him as being possible. Logic seeks to reduce the possibilities to their most consistent common denominators. Theology serves to privilege one possibility to the exclusion of all others. Invisibility and eternality are the two most common attributes of any explanation that attempts to privilege a cause without reason or logic.

E: In what way?

Rw: You mentioned Genesis chapters 1 & 2. Is this not a definite attempt to explain the process of how this universe came to be? I hope you aren’t going to claim it is accurate and consistent to scientific discoveries that have exposed the contradictions.


E: Some things are beyond empirical testing, simply because they have happened in the past. In those situations surely we need a different means of establishing certainty.

Rw: Since you’ve already conceded the “deterministic” nature of this universe I find this statement puzzling. We cannot abandon a known at precisely the point where it is needed the most. Determinism is a known fact of our reality. Any historical claim can, if it is true, be established as logically possible or factual. Statistical probability is a viable tool in establishing direction of empirical testing. Statistics are derived from givens to facilitate an expedition into the un-known to construct the most logical possibilities from which testing can be determined. This is known as the process of deduction. Where statistics are not available the process of ascertaining the most logical possibilities are derived via induction. Both rely on a body of established knowledge from which to work. That is why the terms used in any hypothetical possibility must be clearly defined to establish the logic. “God” is one of those terms that has not been clearly defined, indeed appears un-definable, and thus is cast outside the arena for consideration as a logical possibility.

E: All I am saying is that science is not able to predict every possible event in this universe. It doesn't have the right to rule out certain alleged phenomena on the grounds that it doesn't understand it or can't explain it.

Rw: The predictability of science is based on reduction facilitated by empirical testing that is economically determined by ruling out all but the most logical allegations concerning specific phenomena. Any allegation whose terms remain incomprehensible necessarily defers it to a position outside the realm of logical possibility and inconsistent to the methods used thusfar that have provided the most consistent predictability. Until, and unless, the terms are properly defined any consideration of the allegation from a methodological standpoint remains impossible to rule IN as a logical possibility worthy of consideration. When and or if you ever get around to defining your crucial terms, then, and only then, can we discuss the merits of a scientific investigation based on your allegation that god is a phenomenon deserving of inclusion in the methodology.

Please note, I am arguing from a position of strong atheism. It is not necessary for me to categorically rule out the possibility of god but only to offer an alternative logical possibility that demonstrates a superior position to godunnit. That is the strength of my position and does not rely on an unsupported assertion but an alternative logical possibility congruent to the reality of our current position within this universe. I have clearly defined the terms of my argument without contradiction and continue to demonstrate the inductive application of them as a logical possibility.

E: This means that we can only accept the reality of anything that it is within our ability to comprehend, explain or reproduce?

Rw: This means that we can only consider the validity of a term or concept used in the explanation of an alleged phenomenon AFTER it has become comprehensible. Comprehension is an absolute necessity of meaningfulness.

E: And this only highlights that any arguement that you present about the pre-universe is essentially redundant because it can never be empirically established.

Rw: How can you know it will never be empirically substantiated? Establishing logical possibilities are the first step in directing us to ask the right questions. Empirical testing is way down the road from logical possibility and is the final process of establishing fact. You do understand the difference between fact and logical possibility…yes? The argument I’ve offered goes toward establishing a direction consistent to science. Godunnit, as a possibility, ends the quest and requires nothing further from us but acceptance.

E: Can't the actuality of an event be established beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the reliability of the person recounting the incident?

Rw: That is contingent on the reasonableness of the doubt and the event being established as actual. If you tell me your dog caught a horse by the nose and pulled it to the ground I wouldn’t seriously question the reasonableness of your claim. When you tell me an invisible deity outside of time created the universe my reasonableness meter rises to the occasion. You are arguing here for the viability of personal testimony as a means of establishing the actuality of an event. I do not rule this out, I just say that it isn’t applicable across the board and is contingent on the reasonableness of the event being testified to. Saying an invisible deity caused the universe to exist is a might extreme to saying you believe an invisible deity caused a polyp on your right kidney to dissolve without any further medical attention. Other factors come into play here that shouldn’t be relevant to the actuality of the event, factors like your credibility as a reliable witness, your mental and physical condition at the time; many un-knowns enter the picture that might influence the reasonableness of your claim that even you might not be aware of.


E: No. I've argued that any cause of the universe is beyond perceptual verification and outside of time as we know it.

Rw: Which isn’t saying anything essential to your position.

E: I have gone on to say that God, as described in the Bible, is described as the cause of the universe and existing in a state necessary for any cause.
The term 'God' then ceases to be a completely meaningless term.

Rw: Sorry E_muse, but this doesn’t define the term “god” in any meaningful way. Simply referring me to a book, whose credibility is in serious jeapordy and has been for a long time, doesn’t constitute a definition of the term. It merely inserts it into your position from a different direction than you’ve been arguing. The omni-max attributes derived from this book are contradictory, both internally and especially when critically compared to reality. The inconsistencies render the term incomprehensible. The book you reference doesn’t supply any meaningful consistent definition and that, IMO, is why the church has experienced this sectarianism that has each faction basing its existence on a particular definition of this concept. One faction describes god as a heavenly father, another as a sovereign being, another as a human being from heaven returned to his throne, and the list grows exponentially to the interpretations derived. This occurs primarily because of the abstract terminology associated with any attempted definition.


E: The assertion stands. Its claims about the universe are now not completely unsupported.

Rw: Those assertions have never been completely unsupported and that is not the thrust of my rebuttal. Your assertion assumes that the idea of this universe having a beginning was created by the explanation offered in Genesis. It isn’t hard to conclude that this universe must have had a beginning. It’s quite reasonable to assume that primitive men observed birds hatching from eggs, lambs born from sheep, plants sprouting up from seeds and to extrapolate from those observations that their very existence and world must also have had some derivative cause. As I said above, there are a number of mythologies attributing a creation account to some god or another, some older than Genesis. Do you also assert that the Genesis account reflects a true beginning to this universe?


E: I hope that this isn't an unsupported assertion RW Where is your evidence for this claim.

Rw: The Enuma Elish and other relevant artifacts pre-dating the Hebrews.

E: Even if it is true, it doesn't make the Genesis claim that the heavens and the earth had a beginning untrue does it?

Rw: No, just irrelevant to your position.

E: Defensibility was irrelevant to the originators of the account, because they did not have the scientific means. Defensibility is not irrelevant to us now though.

Rw: Thus they had belief.

E: The point is, ancient man appears to have had a knowledge that both heaven and earth had a beginning.

Rw: Knowledge…or belief? Equivocating man’s earliest beliefs of a beginning with modern man’s knowledge that confirms those beliefs doesn’t establish Genesis as truth. From the artifacts available it appears it was a common belief held by many tribes and not sacrosanct to the Hebrews only.

E: All I have said is that the cause of the universe is beyond perceptual verification and outside time as we know it. I have then said that God, as defined in the Bible, is presented as being beyond perceptual verification and outside time as we know it. He is also described as being the first cause.

Rw: Well, E_muse, no disrespect intended, but this line of argumentation is becoming tendentious to an extreme. I can say, *%&^ is first cause. What relevant information have I conveyed? Until you define god itself as a meaningful term, attaching any explicits to his alleged existence is futile. What if it’s discovered that champagne bubbles are the first cause? Will you then advocate a religious movement to honor champagne bubbles?

E: Essentially beyond perceptual verification (in the normal ways understood by science),

Rw: How would you know if something beyond perceptual verification had any essence? What ways, abnormal to science, are there to comprehend this essence?

E: essentially outside of time as we know it

Rw: What does it mean to be “outside of time”? Generally when something is outside our knowledge it is an un-known. “Outside” is a term used to describe a location. Location in conjunction with time is described as a POINT. So I can only infer from this that the “essence” of god is an un-known point of time beyond perceptual verification.

E: This seems true of whatever caused the universe whether we accept that it is God or not.

Rw: This might seem true to you but it sounds extremely superfluous. You are defining god using terms that again convey no conceptual capability. The best I can do with “beyond perceptual verification” is non-existent. How do I conceptualize that which is beyond perceptual verification? I wanted to say invisible but that only rules out the optical nerves. How do I finesse any understanding from a definition that hinges on an un-known place or point of time?

E: It just so happens that God, as described in the Bible, is defined in these ways.

Rw: And you see some logical meaning in this that enables you to conceptualize the term and attribute the existence of our universe to it? You find this to be a suitable argument against terms derived from this universe being postulated as a logically possible pre-universal state?

E: I am claiming nothing of the sort. You are saying this RW, not me.
All I have said is, "God, as described in the Bible....". This is hardly the same as saying that the ideas expressed there never pre-existed it! If they didn't pre-exist it, how were the writers able to put them onto paper.
I would suggest that the writings laid out in Genesis existed as a prior oral tradition. Perhaps they then existed as separate written traditions before being collated by a later writer into one document.
I would therefore suggest that they are the earliest available written form of an ancient oral tradition.
However, the main point would be, the stories are much more ancient and certainly predate the time of their first being committed to a written form.
Of course the notion of God existed prior to the Bible. The Bible seeks to describe a time before its own existence! To suggest anything else would be absurd. The Bible stems out of those notions and claimed experiences, not the other way around.
The point is, they reflect an ancient knowledge that the heavens and the earth had a beginning.

Rw: Well, I agree with you 100% that the bible likely existed as an oral tradition long before it became a written one. That was not the gist of my rebuttal. What I took (or mis-took) you to be saying was that god provided an answer long before the question was ever asked. Genesis reads like an answer to a question about the origins of the universe, does it not? What would you say came first: the questions about the origins of primitive man’s universe, or the answer that god dunnit?

E: No. I am saying that (in terms of the first part of Genesis for the moment), that what is in these passages is a collation of an early oral tradition.

Rw: But that doesn’t respond to my question. Are we to assume the bible is true? And if so, regardless of its origin, are we to take it that the answers contained in Genesis preceded the questions? Were men oblivious to the question of universal origins until god claimed authorship or did men form the questions and god provided the answers?
quote:

E: I have said that God is defined as not perceptually verifiable, beyond time as we know it and the first cause of the universe.

Rw: And this provides me with no usable information to form a conceptual foundation for this god. Postulating a non-existent, un-known point of time as the cause of this universe is just plain incomprehensible.

E: These are factors that are true of whatever caused the universe.

Rw: Why do you keep saying this? I have presented terms derived from this universe that are perceptually verifiable, that include time itself as a logically possible pre-universal state, shown how it is logical to look for causes among the debris of effects, and offered a speculation for how they could have caused a transition to this universe. I have made the concession that their form in this universe could not have been the same in a pre-universal state. I have not saddled them with any unnecessary attributes peculiar to sentient beings like intelligence or purpose. Just because I cannot say in what form they existed does not automatically negate their existence or mean they were beyond perceptual verifiability or outside of time as we know it. There was simply no “we” to know or perceive of them. But there is a “we” now and we do perceive them and know they are axiomatic to our sentience and this makes my possibility logical.

E: It just so happens that the ancients describe God in this way, according to the oral tradition that has become Genesis 1 and 2.

Rw: And nothing just so happens with or to man without a cause.

E: Indeed. But until it is experienced, how do you know that it has actual being?

Rw: Mental conceptualization. It is rendered into the imagination by defining terms that have been experienced. Concepts that haven’t been experienced cannot be rendered in the imagination when defined by terms that, themselves, defy any conceptual rendering…terms like eternity or omniscience or omnipotence. They have no rendering power and simply overwhelm our imaginations ability to conceptualize from them. Paul understood this and that is why he deified Jesus as the express image of the invisible god.


E: Does it have to be my experience?

Rw: No, but if you launch a claim that an experience someone else had was caused by something that had no ontological connection to reality, your claim would be no less specious.

E: O.K. Let me ask the question. How did the ancients possess a knowledge that the universe (as they knew it), had a beginning?

Rw: By extrapolation from observation that every single element they observed appeared to have a birth or beginning. It isn’t that far-fetched an extrapolation. And, what they likely possessed wouldn’t qualify as knowledge as much as belief.

E: My children have invented Mr Nobody. He does all the naughty things in the house!
I have seen similar things going on in religion and the Church. People do things and call it God.

Rw: And how do you know that people a long time ago didn’t do the same thing with god itself? When confronted with inexplicable experiences and few options wouldn’t it be less stressful to just create an explanation that continues to grow as each new experience is born requiring one? Beginning with a few simple attributions to some aspect of nature, perhaps volcanic activity or thunderstorms and then, orally passing it along and having each successive generation contribute until you have a worldview based entirely on this god as a ready made explanation for everything that makes no sense any other way?

E: Understanding, yes. However, we are not able to dictate what does and does not happen on the basis of an incomplete understanding.

Rw: However, we are able to increase our understanding and there are methods to do so based on reality as we understand it.

E: You have postulated existence as an antecedent. Existence and time are both only axiomatic in this universe and only relate to what we know to exist in this universe.

Rw: And why is that a problem? There have many things existing in our universe that we didn’t know until we discovered them. But we were able to build upon those discoveries until we learned more and more.

E: We are seeking to discuss a time when the universe didn't exist!

Rw: And I am glad to see you conceding that there was a “time” when the universe didn’t exist, rather than a place outside or point.


E: You are using this universe as a basis for your arguements concerning a time when it didn't exist.

Rw: Why is that such a problem? The universe, and all its components, are a product of something which pre-existed it, is it not? Why is it so unthinkable to consider that perhaps some aspects of this universe reflect that state of pre-existence?

E: It is mathematics that gives rise to the initial singularity at the beginning of the universe.

Rw: And this is derived from background radiation and curved space.

E: If anything did exist prior to the universe, science can say nothing about and it can not be considered to have had any influence on the universe.

Rw: Why? Pre-science can speak volumes as Hawking has demonstrated. Science is a process that begins with logical possibility. You cannot logically say that whatever existed prior to this universe could have no effect on it. It had to have effected a change/transition that culminated in the BB.

E: That is why Stephen Hawking seeks to remove the singularity and comes up with the no boundary proposal. This produces a universe that has no beginning and no end and has no boundary. It also involves the invocation of imaginary time. However, the problem with this is obvious. It is imaginary... a fantasy!

Rw: It is a logical possibility, a beginning.

E: If we can say anything about the pre-universe, it cannot come from mathematics.

Rw: Not yet, no, but that is by no means a condition we must accept without question.


E: Theistic explanations do not seek to explain physical causal relationships.

Rw: I see, then you are not attempting to explain the physical existence of the universe from a theistic perspective?

E: My experience is finite in extent and I would never invoke it as a basis for absolute truth concerning the universe.

Rw: I wasn’t asking you to establish an absolute truth, just for the benefit of your experience.

E: I am not attempting to ridicule naturalistic explanation. I am merely saying that it is finite in terms of its explanatory power.

Rw: And what’s wrong with that? At least it has covered some ground the church was adamantly set against and made more progress in a few hundred years than mankind has ever made.

E: Everything that exists has been determined by what came before it.

Rw: Everything, that is, except the universe itself? And this has been determined by what means? Isn’t it a fact that causes have been discovered by observation of their effects? Thus cause and effect leave a trail backwards towards a projected original cause? Such that elements of each effect contain elements of the cause?

E: For many, the concept of God, or some higher power, is axiomatic to their experience. This doesn't make it true. It is simply a matter of fact.

Rw: And for you?




E: I think that a reality without time is pretty incomprehensible.

Rw: Yet you don’t see any problem with defining god as being outside of time. Then are we to take this to mean that god is not a comprehensible concept or that he does not really exist?

E: The pre-universe, by its very nature, is not consistent with our reality.

Rw: And that nature being? But you see no problem positing this universe as a product of a god who is not consistent with our reality?


E: No. We can defend the metaphysical principle that, whatever begins to exist must have a cause. We can see that whatever caused the universe is invisible to us, is outside time as we know it and is logically difficult to determine.

Rw: And is that invisibility the result of it being a creator god or the result of our inability to find the pieces of the puzzle after 14 or so billion years?

E: We can see that the ancients had a view of God as an invisible cause, outside of time as we know it and logically difficult to defend.

Rw: This is just another way of arguing a god of the gaps.

E: Praying and fasting, attending religious services etc, is pretty unhelpful if you don't believe in God.

Rw: There are many scientists who do believe in god but do they incorporate these practices into their scientific research?

E: If it is 'prior' to, then it is still 'outside'.

Rw: This is an equivocation of terms E_muse. Outside implies something existing to be outside of. Prior to defines the proper order. Prior to the universe there would be nothing to exist outside of.

E: I assume you agree that the universe could not have caused itself. Therefore, whatever caused it, existed or exists outside of it in that sense.

Rw: I have no reason to assume that the cause existed outside of that which it caused before it caused it. I also have no reason to assume that whatever caused it still exists outside of it, where ever that may be. I also have no reason to assume that whatever caused it couldn’t have just become a part of it at its inception.

E: Prior, involves time.

Rw: Exactly, and time hinders presupposition and must be circumvented.

E: Its difficult itsn't it!

Rw: Incomprehensible would be my assessment.





E: The ancients appear to have had a knowledge that the known universe was caused. The basis for their knowledge in this regard appears to be on the basis of an alleged interreaction with that cause in previous history.

Rw: And the problem with this assertion is that you are claiming this god provided an answer before the question was ever formulated, when archaeological artifacts prove that many primitive tribes had already devised many creator gods, indicating the question was a universal one that, due to a lack of scientific method, they resolved by invention. This is consistent with human evolution of its knowledge base.

E: I wouldn't disagree with that.

But according to Big Bang theory, anything that pre-existed the universe could not have any influence on it.
Rw: And the theory
is subject to revision since it is just a theory.



E: The ancients appear to have had a knowledge that the universe was caused.

Rw: A belief that took science to confirm as a logical possibility. A belief not difficult to surmise from observation of ones environment.

E: There also appears to be ancient race memory, expressed through oral tradition, that man enjoyed some form of interreaction with that cause, which seem to make sense of their knowledge that the universe had a beginning.

Rw: None of which establishes their invented explanation as viable or true. Just because the question has been around since man developed primitive languages doesn’t automatically make his primitive explanations true or privilege them with logic in a modern argument.

E: Everything, as we know it, appears to have had a beginning at the big bang. In terms of big bang cosmology, if anything did pre-exist the universe, it could have had no influence on this universe in terms of physical causal relationship.

Rw: And that is easily resolved by considering what “influence” is and how it is predictive. Influence means to have an effect requiring a connection of some kind. But if that connection was broken at the BB then this is true but not prohibitive to postulating a remnant of the pre-universal state having been changed into attributes of this universe as a result of the BB.


E: It has no predicitive power.

Rw: None is required. It is explanatory relationship we are seeking. If that which pre-existed this universe caused the BB with the resultant universe as an effect, it is a very logical possibility that some aspects of the pre-existent state became intricately distributed among the physical attributes of its effect, (this universe). None seem to have more predictive power in this universe than time and existence.

Theli

Damn!
I just read through 4 E-Muse vs Rainbow Walking posts, and now my vision is blurry, and my head hurts.