homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » An Argument for Monotheism... (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: An Argument for Monotheism...
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, I thought you all might have some fun hacking away at this train of thought:

Premise 1. The universe exists.
Premise 2. It's existence came out of nothing.
Premise 3. It takes God(s) to create a universe out of nothing. (Or show otherwise).

Premise 4. Gods can be existent or non-existent
Premise 5. Gods can be inadequate or adequate or more than adequate to create the universe
Premise 6. Gods can be none, singular, double, several, many or infinite in number.

And any combination of the above. So, for example, if one thought there might be three Gods, those Gods could be all non-existent, or two non-existent and one inadequate, or one non-existent, one inadequate, and one more than adequate to the task of creating the universe, and so on, for all possible permutations. Likewise for any number of Gods. So, when we have generated a list of all possible possibilities...

...we can apply Occam's Razor*:
Rule out all non-existent Gods as irrelevant, since they can't be responsible for creating anything.
Rule out all inadequate Gods as unnecessary, since they can't create the universe.
Rule out all more than adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is adequacy to create the universe.
Rule out multiple adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is one of them to create the universe.

Conclusion: We are left with a singular, existing, adequate God.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Do not multiply entities beyond necessity or Prefer the simplest solution.

[ 10. January 2018, 09:43: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784

 - Posted      Profile for Tortuf   Author's homepage   Email Tortuf   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
B
Posts: 6927 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't follow the logic. There could be a creator God and a bunch of other deities who are worth worshipping (Greek/Roman myths, Terry Pratchett). Creation might not have come from nothing. No creator deity might be needed (for example if everything is created from the wreckage of a previous universe, so there is no "beginning" or "end").

Even if there is a single deity, there maybe no need to worship him, it might make no difference to him, he might be dead, busy elsewhere, asleep, totally unaware of the consequences of the thing he has set in place.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10466 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, as per mr cheesy. We don't know if the universe came out of nothing. In fact, we don't know if the Big Bang formed the universe. There are plenty of different cosmological ideas at the moment, e.g. bubble universes. I suppose theists are going to pick one that suits.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468

 - Posted      Profile for Golden Key   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Welcome, 2RM.

Your three "rule outs" about adequacy don't seem to have any basis, other than your preference. You don't *know* what is adequate.

I don't know Who or What there may be; but if we allow for one supernatural Deity/deity, I think we should acknowledge the possibility that there *might* be more than one.

--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")

Posts: 18346 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Premise 6. Gods can be none, singular, double, several, many or infinite in number.

I think you haven't sufficiently dealt with the question of whether any gods at all are required.

Also you're assuming that the difference between monotheism and polytheism is simply that monotheists believe that there's just one of the same kind of thing that polytheists believe that there's lots of.
But any god that is the kind of thing that polytheists believe in would be inadequate to explain the universe, since they would be part of a universe+ (the universe you're trying to explain plus whatever gods you think explain it). Obviously nothing that is part of universe+ is adequate to explain universe+.
In order to explain the universe adequately something has not to require further explanation itself. If there could be one or more of something it's the kind of thing that requires explanation.

So you don't need to fall back on Occam's Razor to argue for monotheism. Anything that is countable - that there could be more than one of - is not adequate to explain the universe.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10484 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
So, I thought you all might have some fun hacking away at this train of thought:

Premise 1. The universe exists.
Premise 2. It's existence came out of nothing.
Premise 3. It takes God(s) to create a universe out of nothing. (Or show otherwise).

Premise 4. Gods can be existent or non-existent
Premise 5. Gods can be inadequate or adequate or more than adequate to create the universe
Premise 6. Gods can be none, singular, double, several, many or infinite in number.

And any combination of the above. So, for example, if one thought there might be three Gods, those Gods could be all non-existent, or two non-existent and one inadequate, or one non-existent, one inadequate, and one more than adequate to the task of creating the universe, and so on, for all possible permutations. Likewise for any number of Gods. So, when we have generated a list of all possible possibilities...

...we can apply Occam's Razor*:
Rule out all non-existent Gods as irrelevant, since they can't be responsible for creating anything.
Rule out all inadequate Gods as unnecessary, since they can't create the universe.
Rule out all more than adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is adequacy to create the universe.
Rule out multiple adequate Gods as superfluous, since all that is required is one of them to create the universe.

Conclusion: We are left with a singular, existing, adequate God.

Best wishes, 2RM

*Do not multiply entities beyond necessity or Prefer the simplest solution.

Premise 2 is probably false and certainly unfalsifiable at this point. Points four, five and six and also either false or unfalsifiable.

Zzzzz.

K.

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1776 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Premise 2 is probably false and certainly unfalsifiable at this point. Points four, five and six and also either false or unfalsifiable...
[/QB]

Thanks all, for your replies. Somehow, I just knew logic wasn't going to cut it! But to address myself to directly to Komensky, and indirectly to all of you:

Premise 2: That the universe came out of nothing, seems to me to be true a priori, since any matter, energy, time or space that might be thought to exist before the universe, must also better be considered part of the universe.

I am not sure what your issue with premises 4,5 and 6 might be. For example, take premise 4. Either a God exists, or it doesn't. I do not perceive any other possibilities. Similarly for premises 5 and 6.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Basically, the OP seems to present a sub-species of the Cosmological Argument for the existence of a 'first cause'. More work would be needed to show that this first cause is akin to the Abrahamic God.

Incidentally, the argument does not depend upon the universe having an origin in time. I believe that many ancient proponents of this argument thought that it actually implied that the universe was eternal. If I have understood correctly, 'causality' in metaphysics is quite different from causality in physics.

Posts: 299 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185

 - Posted      Profile for que sais-je   Email que sais-je   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:

Premise 2: That the universe came out of nothing, seems to me to be true a priori, since any matter, energy, time or space that might be thought to exist before the universe, must also better be considered part of the universe.

You suggest time is part of the universe. Doesn't your argument then imply that it makes sense to say 'before the the universe', i.e. before time existed? Is that possible?

I'm sorry you got so little support for your arguments. I feel bad throwing in another spanner but your reference to Occam's razor needs some more thought. I can't see any reason of infinite god(s) to be parsimonious in their creations. So if you mean that god(s) would have applied the razor to their own creation of the universe, I'd like some reasoning.

On the other hand, if Occam's razor refers to a human desire for simplicity (e.g. there might be millions of gods creating vast unnecessary complexity but we prefer to ignore that and find a simple model) then it only applies to our thinking and not what we are thinking about.

I've seen many worse attempts but reluctantly I'd echo Tortuf's B.

[I typed the bit about time simultaneously to Higgs Bosun ... from my frame of reference at least]

[ 10. January 2018, 13:16: Message edited by: que sais-je ]

--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)

Posts: 792 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In order to explain the universe adequately something has not to require further explanation itself. If there could be one or more of something it's the kind of thing that requires explanation.

If one god can exist without explanation, why can't two?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30017 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Premise 2: That the universe came out of nothing, seems to me to be true a priori, since any matter, energy, time or space that might be thought to exist before the universe, must also better be considered part of the universe.

Nothing existed before the universe, because there is no such thing as "before the universe" (time itself is a part of the universe).

We don't know what caused the universe to begin. Maybe matter can spontaneously pop into existence. Maybe it was a byproduct of another universe's death. Maybe a god or gods did it. Maybe there is no beginning, and matter/energy just recycles over and over again, but on timescales larger than any human adjective can express.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30017 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
You suggest time is part of the universe. Doesn't your argument then imply that it makes sense to say 'before the the universe', i.e. before time existed? Is that possible?

Yes, I noted that as I typed it. I am not sure what the correct preposition is for 'before time'. Maybe ante-time? Whatever, I take your point, with the pinch of salt being that Christianity has long been associated with the idea that God is both everlasting (inside time) and eternal (outside time).

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
I'm sorry you got so little support for your arguments.

Don't worry. I'm quite thick skinned. And I put the argument up for people to shoot down. I think my IQ is at least 10 points below the forum average, and I am looking forward to learning from you all.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 14:03: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Maybe matter can spontaneously pop into existence.

If it can't we need another explanation for Hawking radiation.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10575 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's not spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's not spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing.

If virtual particles coming into existence as actual particles or vacuum fluctuation forming a particle-antiparticle pair (the two competing explanations, which both sound like they're the same thing to non-physicists) don't count as "spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing" I'm not sure what would.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10575 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
? vacuum isn't nothing. And Hawking radiation is from evaporating black holes.

[ 10. January 2018, 15:02: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I recall, in an episode of "X Files", one of the agents referred to "Occam's Rule of Limited Imagination". Real explanations can be more complex than we expect, so Occam's Razor can lead us to over-simplified conclusions.

When I saw the title of the thread, I thought it would be about "why monotheism instead of polytheism", rather than about the origin of the universe or of God. Either way, I think one must start with and agree to a definition of "God" or "god" or "exists".

By the way, why should our universe not have been created by a group of individuals none of whom could have done the job alone?

Posts: 1519 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What made them?

[ 10. January 2018, 15:24: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
That's not spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing.

If virtual particles coming into existence as actual particles or vacuum fluctuation forming a particle-antiparticle pair (the two competing explanations, which both sound like they're the same thing to non-physicists) don't count as "spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing" I'm not sure what would.
It may sound like "spontaneously coming in to existence from nothing", but it most certainly isn't. As Martin said, vacuum is something - it's an energy field. A field that can produce pairs of particles and corresponding anti-particles from the vacuum field, "borrowing" energy from the Uncertainty Principal to exist for short periods of time. Hawking Radiation is a similar process, though here the virtual particles become real by permanently taking energy (=mass) from the black hole.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32248 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've often reflected that Occum's Razor is being cited in strange ways. Weather is complicated - there are a range of simpler explanations, such as that there are supernatural beings creating the phenomena.

To me, the issue is more that we're naturally inclined to think that complicated explanations are more likely to be true that simple ones.

Of course, in the main scientists are thinking about things in very narrow parameters and are doing experiments and making conclusions based on particular results. In that context, it makes more sense to be looking for the simplest explanation without needing to add a whole lot of other stuff.

But in most other areas of life, the simplest explanation is usually wrong - usually because the simplest explanation ignores, or is unaware of, a whole bunch of other complicating factors.

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10466 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Welcome, 2RM.

Thank you.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Your three "rule outs" about adequacy don't seem to have any basis, other than your preference. You don't *know* what is adequate.

Indeed so. For all I know, having no personal experience in universe creation, omnibenevolence is a required attribute.

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I don't know Who or What there may be; but if we allow for one supernatural Deity/deity, I think we should acknowledge the possibility that there *might* be more than one.

Exactly. My purpose is not to 'prove' there is no pantheon of Gods, just to point out that such a pantheon is unnecessary. Occam does not suggest that simplicity always leads to the correct solution, just that his principle is most likely to lead to the correct solution.

Best wishes, 2RM

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My schoolboy understanding is that as photons spontaneously become electron-positron pairs, as they do, in the upper boundary of the event horizon of black holes, one of the pair can break free of the surface, whence black hole evaporation.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
My purpose is not to 'prove' there is no pantheon of Gods, just to point out that such a pantheon is unnecessary.

The universe is not what is necessary but what simply what is.

quote:

Occam does not suggest that simplicity always leads to the correct solution, just that his principle is most likely to lead to the correct solution.

Not quite. Fewest assumptions is the basis of his premise, not simplicity.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 17310 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:


By the way, why should our universe not have been created by a group of individuals none of whom could have done the job alone?

Actually, David Hume suggested this, during his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779), where he notes that creation might have been accomplished by a team of Gods, each inadequate to complete the universe creation task individually, but together capable.

Thing is, if you substitute the phrase 'team of Gods' for where I have written 'God(s)' in the OP, you will find the conclusion is very similar. One ends up with the conclusion that a single, existing, adequate team of Gods is all that is required.

Then, you just need to compare that conclusion, a single, existing, adequate team of Gods, with a single, existing, adequate God, and decide for you yourself which is the simplest solution, that would survive Occam's Razor.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 16:07: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The only argument that plays to a draw on a good day is Kalam.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Nah, they only ever help once you've made your mind up.

And as for the number of Gods, it's one or infinite. Not 17 or some other arbitrary number.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?

Ha Ha! You just wait 'til I get started on Anselm's ontological argument! If I can't persuade most of humanity that they are sorely wrong, I shall be a just a mite disappointed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My schoolboy understanding

The school boy needs a better physics teacher.

quote:
photons spontaneously become electron-positron pairs, as they do, in the upper boundary of the event horizon of black holes, one of the pair can break free of the surface, whence black hole evaporation.
The process of photons transforming (non-spontaneously) into electron-positron pairs is an example of pair production, which happens in the vicinity of a heavy charged object (an atomic nucleus).

Hawking Radiation is a very different process, in which particle-antiparticle pairs are created spontaneously from the vacuum field, and in the vicinity of a black hole event horizon one of the particles is pulled into the singularity and the other escapes. This has the appearance of particles streaming away from the event horizon, and the mass of the black hole reducing ... eventually leading to the black hole evaporating.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32248 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My schoolboy understanding

The school boy needs a better physics teacher.

quote:
photons spontaneously become electron-positron pairs, as they do, in the upper boundary of the event horizon of black holes, one of the pair can break free of the surface, whence black hole evaporation.
The process of photons transforming (non-spontaneously) into electron-positron pairs is an example of pair production, which happens in the vicinity of a heavy charged object (an atomic nucleus).

Hawking Radiation is a very different process, in which particle-antiparticle pairs are created spontaneously from the vacuum field, and in the vicinity of a black hole event horizon one of the particles is pulled into the singularity and the other escapes. This has the appearance of particles streaming away from the event horizon, and the mass of the black hole reducing ... eventually leading to the black hole evaporating.

Where angels fear to tread: wouldn't that mean that the vicinity would have to be within the black hole? Tangential to the upper bound of the event horizon? For the loss of a particle and its mass from the black hole? I.e. the vacuum field is everywhere including inside black holes?

Point taken that no photon is necessary, but that's how I first heard it explained, as I probably falsely recall.

(And isn't a black hole a heavy, charged object?)

[ 10. January 2018, 16:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?

Ha Ha! You just wait 'til I get started on Anselm's ontological argument! If I can't persuade most of humanity that they are sorely wrong, I shall be a just a mite disappointed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There's a story that Antony Flew converted to deism, supposedly in relation to the beginning of life. (How can mindless matter produce the Kardashians, kind of thing). He was widely accused of senility, by atheists, that is.

Then there's Vladimir Putin, whose conversion was apparently based on Anselm (joking). He is listed as a convert from atheism to Christianity.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious if anyone is actually impressed by such arguments, or is tempted to convert to theism? I feel incredulous that this is so, but I'm not one to let incredulity mar reality.

I can understand them being used after the fact, but how about before?

Ha Ha! You just wait 'til I get started on Anselm's ontological argument! If I can't persuade most of humanity that they are sorely wrong, I shall be a just a mite disappointed.

Best wishes, 2RM.

There's a story that Antony Flew converted to deism, supposedly in relation to the beginning of life. (How can mindless matter produce the Kardashians, kind of thing). He was widely accused of senility, by atheists, that is.

Then there's Vladimir Putin, whose conversion was apparently based on Anselm (joking). He is listed as a convert from atheism to Christianity.

Indeed, but it is my perception that the majority of humanity believes, but believes stuff about God for entirely the wrong reasons.

If I had nothing better to do, then I might be inclined to try to rectify that, as my mission in life. But the truth is, warm English real ale is far more entrancing a prospect.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 17:20: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Then, you just need to compare that conclusion, a single, existing, adequate team of Gods, with a single, existing, adequate God, and decide for you yourself which is the simplest solution, that would survive Occam's Razor.

Would not zero gods be even simpler?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10575 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
Then, you just need to compare that conclusion, a single, existing, adequate team of Gods, with a single, existing, adequate God, and decide for you yourself which is the simplest solution, that would survive Occam's Razor.

Would not zero gods be even simpler?
Indeed it would. But you need to present some argument as to how zero Gods might account for the universe. See the OP.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There isn't an argument as to how God could account for the universe, is there? I mean, there are arguments suggesting that God did it, or does it, but not how, in the sense of, in which manner.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't an argument as to how God could account for the universe, is there? I mean, there are arguments suggesting that God did it, or does it, but not how, in the sense of, in which manner.

True. But I don't know how the Virgin people wired my flat for TV, telephone, and broadband. They just did, and before them I had no such services, and after them, I did.

Eventually, I guess, barring catastrophe and should the world continue to progress, we will get closer and closer as to understanding the methods that made the world, and us. Meanwhile, our lack of understanding need not predispose us to a bias against faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't an argument as to how God could account for the universe, is there? I mean, there are arguments suggesting that God did it, or does it, but not how, in the sense of, in which manner.

True. But I don't know how the Virgin people wired my flat for TV, telephone, and broadband. They just did, and before them I had no such services, and after them, I did.

Eventually, I guess, barring catastrophe and should the world continue to progress, we will get closer and closer as to understanding the methods that made the world, and us. Meanwhile, our lack of understanding need not predispose us to a bias against faith.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Well, your Virgin example is a bit wonky, isn't it? I can find out how they did it, in fact, I could train to do it.

I often cite gravity, about which much is not known. Maybe it's caused by God pulling down on everything.

Well, I have a bias against the supernatural, because I can't effing find it. Ah well.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Would not zero gods be even simpler?

Indeed it would. But you need to present some argument as to how zero Gods might account for the universe. See the OP.
I'm with quetzalcoatl on this one. Absent an explanation of how God created the Universe, positing God doesn't "account for the universe". It's just a hand wave.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10575 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This is like the old argument about explanation. Some theists are prone to saying that God 'explains' the universe, or complexity in nature, or eyes, or morality, or whatever, but that's not correct. It gives you a place-holder, or if you want to be posh, a floating signifier.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Aye, something that results in zero entropy creates universes. Rationally apprehendable universes.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the God hypothesis doesn't explain the universe, if there were some alternative on offer that did.

Just as I don't need to know how the Virgin people wired my flat (I go on the hypothesis that they were competent, duly evidenced by this conversation), I don't find I need to know how how God created the universe (I go on the hypothesis that He was adequate, duly evidenced by this conversation).

So, if you don't want to posit, or 'hand-wave' or 'floating signify', to God, given our present state of existential ignorance, what other explanation for being do you, or can you, propose?

Is a sketchy explanation really so much worse than no explanation?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[ 10. January 2018, 19:00: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Martin's post reminds me of that argument that the total energy of the universe is zero, since the positive of matter is canceled out by the negative of gravity. They say that Einstein stopped in the middle of the street, when he heard this, and nearly got run over. I don't know whether it leads to the argument that creating zero from zero isn't so hard!

[ 10. January 2018, 19:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the God hypothesis doesn't explain the universe, if there were some alternative on offer that did.

Just as I don't need to know how the Virgin people wired my flat (I go on the hypothesis that they were competent, duly evidenced by this conversation), I don't find I need to know how how God created the universe (I go on the hypothesis that He was adequate, duly evidenced by this conversation).

So, if you don't want to posit, or 'hand-wave' or 'floating signify', to God, given our present state of existential ignorance, what other explanation for being do you, or can you, propose?

Is a sketchy explanation really so much worse than no explanation?

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don't think it's as rational as that, is it? I think a lot of religious stuff is about loneliness and love, but maybe that's just me.

--------------------
the main fear that flat-earthers face is sphere itself.

Posts: 9760 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I'd be a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the God hypothesis doesn't explain the universe, if there were some alternative on offer that did.

Just as I don't need to know how the Virgin people wired my flat (I go on the hypothesis that they were competent, duly evidenced by this conversation), I don't find I need to know how how God created the universe (I go on the hypothesis that He was adequate, duly evidenced by this conversation).

You're ignoring the obvious alternative explanation that the Virgin people created the Universe. It actually seems more likely than the idea that God did it, since the Virgin people have at least proved themselves competent at wiring flats, whereas God has not demonstrated that he has even that much ability. Given that it's the simpler explanation (you've directly observed the Virgin people but not God, the Virgin people can perform various IT task whereas whether God can do so is an open question, etc.) it would seem to be the preferred "explanation".

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10575 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SecondRateMind
Apprentice
# 18898

 - Posted      Profile for SecondRateMind   Email SecondRateMind   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

Posts: 24 | Registered: Jan 2018  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SecondRateMind:
I love this forum!

Best wishes, 2RM.

No explanation is necessary. With the possible exception, a la William Lane Craig's Kalam, for that creation is rational, coherent. Not seething instantaneously everywhere with everything.

Universes may come in to being in null, not even a universe maker in which there is no net entropy, because. Because there's null there can be not null.

But why are they so restrained?

[ 10. January 2018, 20:10: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Martin's post reminds me of that argument that the total energy of the universe is zero

Yes, there is a good argument to that effect. Which makes creating the universe somewhat trivial, making nothing is easy.

Except, of course, the universe is a very special arrangement of nothing. It's that ordering of nothing into galaxies, stars, planets and life that is the clever bit.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32248 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Da DAH!

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it not that the total momentum of the universe is zero? And so on up? If there is an up. An uncaused, infinite, eternal scalar energy field which is the womb conceiving quantum perturbations that become universes? If there's no up then universes arise from null. Because there is null. Bit... desperate that isn't it? So there's an uncaused field. Phew! Thank...

I can imagine that its content cancels itself out, even to the degree that the total energy is zero, but it's still there. Vexing isn't it? Or is the average that it is not? That it's still nothing? On average? The average is it's NOT there. So that's all right? Nothing has to be explained? The conservation laws are maintained. Laws?

It's still there. And it creates not only anthropically all but impossibly fine tuned universes - only possible because every possibility has already happened infinitely in eternal infinity - but in the first place it creates them coherently. Which is again an even higher level of improbable existence. Why doesn't anything and everything constantly come in to existence everywhere? By what LAW? The infinite, eternal scalar field ground of being only does quantum perturbations. May be it - any/every thing - DOES. May be bowls of petunias do come in to existence. Why NOT? But not for, in our universe. By chance. By the certainty of even that possibility given infinity.

Makes belief in - uncaused, rational - God perfectly reasonable doesn't it. That's not a question.

[ 11. January 2018, 08:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17281 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools