[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483054]His observation isn't, I'm making the point that no-matter the world view, unless you are an epistemic coherentist, you need a foundation which has no further justification whether it is that you can trust your senses, or that murdering is wrong.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
In the words of Wittgenstein;[/QUOTE]
Yes, our respective arguments must have some foundational assumptions. Some assumed complexity. Whichever hypothesis requires the least assumed complexity is most rational. This is what I've repeated several times.
To repeat myself again, why must the eternal entity external to this universe be sentient?
[QUOTE=Ziks;43483103]Yes, our respective arguments must have some foundational assumptions. Some assumed complexity. Whichever hypothesis requires the least assumed complexity is most rational. This is what I've repeated several times.
To repeat myself again, why must the eternal entity external to this universe be sentient?[/QUOTE]
Can you slow down and address my argument first?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482488]All I can say is that we are here, and that is strange in of itself. I know I can't make things exist, nor do I believe a temporal object can do that. Thus I am limited to a non-temporal object which has the property of causation which can act as the finger to the rest of the dominos. This object has properties that may be revealed using other arguments, but thus far ALL I AM CLAIMING IS that YHWH "I am that I am" exists. Something that can bootstrap itself.
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483090]Yes, that is global skepticism. And I am not saying everything is fake.
I am saying that certain things must be accepted in order to get anywhere (such as 'what you see is what you get'). These assumptions are up for debate, but they aren't neccesarily fully arguable. My assumption for example, holds that in order for anything at all to exist, something must exist which has the property of self existential causation. Essentially a complex object which satisfies the name "I am that I am"[/QUOTE]
Except both your world view and mine requires those basic assumptions that are required to be accepted because if you didn't you would be insane and probably not able to go on about your daily life.
The YHWH you describe there - an entity that invokes it's own existence - is something required by us both. I have no problem with its existence. But why must it be sentient?
C1- Existence requires an object that can self-causate. (In order to give substance to anything else)
C2- An object that could self-causate would be neccesarily complex. (In order to have that property)
C3- An object complex enough to self-causate could not be temporal because in-order for it to self causate it requires that there are no frames before it where it doesn't exist.
C4- Therefore Existence owes itself to an self-caused eternal being. "I am that I am"
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
Copyright Zenreon 2014
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ziks;43483180]The YHWH you describe there - an entity that invokes it's own existence - is something required by us both. I have no problem with its existence. But why must it be sentient?[/QUOTE]
I haven't gotten to that yet, and frankly I'm working on it. I might do my PhD on it.
Why an eternal being rather than an eternal entity?
Why. Must. It. Be. Sentient.
[QUOTE=Ziks;43483238]Why an eternal being rather than an eternal entity?
Why. Must. It. Be. Sentient.[/QUOTE]
When I say being I don't imply sentient. Being simply means it IS. It be.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483186]C1- Existence requires an object that can self-causate. (In order to give substance to anything else)[/quote]
Wait, what exactly do you mean by existence? What exactly is existing in this context?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483186]C1- Existence requires an object that can self-causate. (In order to give substance to anything else)[/quote]
You still have not shown this to be true.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483186]C2- An object that could self-causate would be neccesarily complex. (In order to have that property)
C3- An object complex enough to self-causate could not be temporal because in-order for it to self causate it requires that there are no frames before it where it doesn't exist.
C4- Therefore Existence owes itself to an self-caused eternal being. "I am that I am"[/quote]
These are fine but they all hinge on the first point being true, which is not at all necessary.
The argument you're making is very old (I believe Thomas Aquinas was the first to formalise it), but it is considered generally not very good in academic philosophy because the point of "the universe must have a first cause" does not lead into "that first cause must be an eternal being".
For example, the Big Bang could be self-causing but that does not require a being of any sort.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483253]When I say being I don't imply sentient. Being simply means it IS. It be.[/QUOTE]
Now you're not even saying anything at all.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483253]When I say being I don't imply sentient. Being simply means it IS. It be.[/QUOTE]
So why do you think it's this god? Or are you implying he doesn't have to be sentient?
But uhh... call me crazy, but rolling right along with the thinking in C2, I would say it is highly plausible a being complex enough to self causate also is complex enough to be sentient. This however is an inductive argument, not deductive.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=MrJazzy;43483267]So why do you think it's this god? Or are you implying he doesn't have to be sentient?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I never asserted that, it wasn't part of my argument.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483268]But uhh... call me crazy, but rolling right along with the thinking in C2, I would say it is highly plausible a being complex enough to self causate also is complex enough to be sentient. This however is an inductive argument, not deductive.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm at least 3 posts away from calling you crazy but you still haven't provided a reason for why it is a being and not just a self-causing event.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483253]When I say being I don't imply sentient. Being simply means it IS. It be.[/QUOTE]
But you do require it to be sentient, don't you? Without sentience your god has no purpose, no intelligence, no morality, no intent. Don't you sense any cognitive dissonance at all?
[QUOTE=Megafan;43483259]You still have not shown this to be true.[/quote]
If something exists, then clearly something exists which can exist by virtue of itself. Since that virtue does not arise from the #5, I am led to conclude that the thing in question must be complex.
[quote]Now you're not even saying anything at all.[/quote]
These slightly anthropomorphic terms really bother you huh? Ok call it whatever you want, being, thing it, that, X, Y. It is inconsequential to my argument.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483268]But uhh... call me crazy, but rolling right along with the thinking in C2, I would say it is highly plausible a being complex enough to self causate also is complex enough to be sentient. This however is an inductive argument, not deductive.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
Yeah, I never asserted that, it wasn't part of my argument.[/QUOTE]
The complexity required for it to be self-causing would be orthogonal to the complexity required for it to be sentient. Sentience assumes additional unnecessary complexity.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483302]If something exists, then clearly something exists which can exist by virtue of itself. Since that virtue does not arise from the #5, I am led to conclude that the thing in question must be complex.[/QUOTE]
And I'm asking you why it is a 'thing' rather than an 'event'.
I feel like we are so close to resolving this, but I'll have to continue this after some sleep.
[QUOTE=Megafan;43483324]And I'm asking you why it is a 'thing' rather than an 'event'.[/QUOTE]
Events cannot hold properties, only existing objects, whether abstract or otherwise. Events are simply descriptions of objects in time.
Since I am operating with the thought that the object would be neccearily complex I am also taking the stance that such an object could [b]Plausibly[/b] be sentient.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ziks;43483335]I feel like we are so close to resolving this, but I'll have to continue this after some sleep.[/QUOTE]
Said every philosopher ever
One final thought I just want to throw out there before I forget it: if something can exist with no externality through self causation, why can't every possible self-causing structure exist independantly infinitely many times?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482283]You have consistently shown that you do not understand my arguments.[/QUOTE]
I'm all ears.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482283]First off, that last post was the first time addressing the Fine tuning argument by me in this thread, as far as I recall. I took the rebuttal (Anthropic Principle), and teased out it's consequences.[/QUOTE]
I was referring to the other threads too. You also have a history of ignoring people's posts.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482283]Eternal does not mean immortal, it means existing outside of time, or to put it another way, existing at every point in time in an unchanged manner. You ask me why the universe can't be eternal? It is because the universe changes, it exists within time. My deity doesn't change, and so can be eternal.[/QUOTE]
Can you actually rebut my point instead of setting up a strawman?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43482283]Lastly, the first cause argument applies to things which had beginnings defined by time. Since my Elohim does not change and exists outside of time, it is nonsensical to speak of him having a beginning.[/QUOTE]
How do you know the universe has a beginning?
[QUOTE=Jookia;43483378]I'm all ears.
I was referring to the other threads too. You also have a history of ignoring people's posts.
Can you actually rebut my point instead of setting up a strawman?
How do you know the universe has a beginning?[/QUOTE]
I don't require that the universe has a beginning, only that something, anything, exists. If I have that, my argument works.
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ziks;43483375]One final thought I just want to throw out there before I forget it: if something can exist with no externality through self causation, why can't every possible self-causing structure exist independantly infinitely many times?[/QUOTE]
No reason, but by my logic I would say that they are not all equal.
If they are not equal then some must be greater than others.
If some are greater then others then there is a greatest.
That greatest being wins the competition of might makes right.
Frankly this just makes me think of angels, interesting point, well raised.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483398]I don't require that the universe has a beginning, only that something, anything, exists. If I have that, my argument works.[/QUOTE]
The universe exists, and probably eternal. I think I may have read that you require eternal things to be unchanging and outside of time, possibly implying that you need time for something to progress and change.
There's a lot of things I can get in to over that, but could you explain that (possible) argument further?
[QUOTE=Jookia;43483612]The universe exists, and probably eternal. I think I may have read that you require eternal things to be unchanging and outside of time, possibly implying that you need time for something to progress and change.
There's a lot of things I can get in to over that, but could you explain that (possible) argument further?[/QUOTE]
Ill repost this and add a few things;
[quote]C1- Existence requires an object that can self-causate. (In order to give substance to anything else)
C2- An object that could self-causate would be neccesarily complex. (In order to have that property)
C3- An object complex enough to self-causate could not be temporal because in-order for it to self causate it requires that there are no frames before it where it doesn't exist.
C4- Therefore Existence owes itself to an self-caused eternal being. "I am that I am"
C5- A being which is complex enough to self-causate can plausibly be sentient
[/quote]
And I'll finish it off with a definition of eternal;
[quote="Dictionary.com"]e·ter·nal [ih-tur-nl]
adjective
1.
without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing (opposed to temporal ): eternal life.[/quote]
[editline]9th January 2014[/editline]
Frankly I recommend you reread the whole thread, it might take a few times through.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483651]Ill repost this and add a few things;
[quote]C1- Existence requires an object that can self-causate. (In order to give substance to anything else)
C2- An object that could self-causate would be neccesarily complex. (In order to have that property)
C3- An object complex enough to self-causate could not be temporal because in-order for it to self causate it requires that there are no frames before it where it doesn't exist.
C4- Therefore Existence owes itself to an self-caused eternal being. "I am that I am"
C5- A being which is complex enough to self-causate can plausibly be sentient[/quote][/QUOTE]
C1- Is it possible that an object can self-causate? What is 'Existence', and why does it require an object that can self-causate? Why do you imply the object gives substance to anything else?
C2- Why is self-causating inherently complex?
C3- Why are being temporal and self-causating mutually exclusive? Also, what are frames? Where does eternalness fit in to this?
C4- Why would the object be a being? How does "I am that I am" fit in to this?
C5- 'being' implies sentience.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483651]And I'll finish it off with a definition of eternal;[/QUOTE]
Why can the universe not be this?
I apologize, I don't think I properly addressed what you were asking, which upon re-reading seems to be a plea for an elaboration on what being eternal entails.
Essentially, to our knowledge, all physical object are temporal. That is to say that they change in their properties. In order for something to change, it must have a frame for it to go into. This passing of frames is what we refer to as time. We inextricably link these two in what people like to call "Space-time". The issue with this is that space-time itself bends, and by this virtue seems to be affected by an element of temporality, if not in our sense, then in an extra-dimensional sense in order to deal with relativity. Something which is eternal therefore cannot change as it does not exist within time.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jookia;43483863]C1- Is it possible that an object can self-causate? What is 'Existence', and why does it require an object that can self-causate? Why do you imply the object gives substance to anything else?
[/quote]
Causation is simply the idea that something gives reason from something else to be. If you have a non-eternal system, then you have one which has frames that regress (imagine going backwards in time), this regression must end at somepoint in order to avoid absurdity, very few philsophers contest this. The reason you need a object to give substance to anything else is because the number 5 has never caused anything to happen, neither has the equation E=mc^2. Before any of that means anything you first need E or m. E and m can't be the self-causal thing because they are temporal, and so must regress to a point where they have a previous frame without their existence.
[quote]
C2- Why is self-causating inherently complex?[/quote]
What do you know out there that causes itself? It frankly would be quite worrisome if random things started causing themselves to be, we would have horrible logical impossibilities happening and things would not be predictable. For something to be self-causating you need to be able to say that it exists without dependence upon any other external system, numeric or otherwise.
[quote]
C3- Why are being temporal and self-causating mutually exclusive? Also, what are frames? Where does eternalness fit in to this?[/quote]
If something is temporal then you can have a string of frames by which you judge what is unfolding. Since it has been reasonably argued before, and I accept, that infinite chains of causal regression do not makes sense, then it stands to reason that there is a self-caused entity which can act upon all the rest of existence to give it the first push of the dominoes. (Perhaps even laying out the dominoes itself)
Eternal is the opposite of temporal. They are mutually exclusive. I am arguing that it is nonsensical to say something that is self-causating is also temporal due to the implication that it once did not exist, and so can never have the chance to create itself.
Ok so frames, think animation;
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMZz0Hk4rBcQN0gEae1Cngea_oNCegXGfMyRCX9v5ibH8L4SiS[/img]
They are tiny chunks of time which denote change.
So far the smallest amount of time we know of is called a "Planck Frame" After Max Planck. It is essentially the smallest amount of time that can pass for any given change.
[quote]C4- Why would the object be a being? How does "I am that I am" fit in to this?[/quote]
"I am that I am" is the statement of self existence, it is a name used for the uncaused one.
Since he(it) is so complex, it is [b]PLAUSIBLE[/b] that he is also sentient.
[quote]
Why can the universe not be this?[/QUOTE]
The universe is temporal, it exists in time.
Eternal is the opposite of temporal.
Therefore the universe is not, and cannot, be eternal.
Gave up on sleep, couldn't really shut my mind up after thinking about the implicated existence of every single possible reality.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]I apologize, I don't think I properly addressed what you were asking, which upon re-reading seems to be a plea for an elaboration on what being eternal entails.
Essentially, to our knowledge, all physical object are temporal. That is to say that they change in their properties. In order for something to change, it must have a frame for it to go into. This passing of frames is what we refer to as time. We inextricably link these two in what people like to call "Space-time". The issue with this is that space-time itself bends, and by this virtue seems to be affected by an element of temporality, if not in our sense, then in an extra-dimensional sense in order to deal with relativity. Something which is eternal therefore cannot change as it does not exist within time.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
Causation is simply the idea that something gives reason from something else to be. If you have a non-eternal system, then you have one which has frames that regress (imagine going backwards in time), this regression must end at somepoint in order to avoid absurdity, very few philsophers contest this. The reason you need a object to give substance to anything else is because the number 5 has never caused anything to happen, neither has the equation E=mc^2. Before any of that means anything you first need E or m. E and m can't be the self-causal thing because they are temporal, and so must regress to a point where they have a previous frame without their existence.
What do you know out there that causes itself? It frankly would be quite worrisome if random things started causing themselves to be, we would have horrible logical impossibilities happening and things would not be predictable. For something to be self-causating you need to be able to say that it exists without dependence upon any other external system, numeric or otherwise.
If something is temporal then you can have a string of frames by which you judge what is unfolding. Since it has been reasonably argued before, and I accept, that infinite chains of causal regression do not makes sense, then it stands to reason that there is a self-caused entity which can act upon all the rest of existence to give it the first push of the dominoes. (Perhaps even laying out the dominoes itself)
Eternal is the opposite of temporal. They are mutually exclusive. I am arguing that it is nonsensical to say something that is self-causating is also temporal due to the implication that it once did not exist, and so can never have the chance to create itself.
Ok so frames, think animation;
[img]https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTMZz0Hk4rBcQN0gEae1Cngea_oNCegXGfMyRCX9v5ibH8L4SiS[/img]
They are tiny chunks of time which denote change.
So far the smallest amount of time we know of is called a "Planck Frame" After Max Planck. It is essentially the smallest amount of time that can pass for any given change.
"I am that I am" is the statement of self existence, it is a name used for the uncaused one.
Since he(it) is so complex, it is [b]PLAUSIBLE[/b] that he is also sentient.
The universe is temporal, it exists in time.
Eternal is the opposite of temporal.
Therefore the universe is not, and cannot, be eternal.[/QUOTE]
That mostly makes sense, although I'll have to call you out on claiming that a structure cannot convincingly be temporal and not be eternal. Space-time topologies where the time dimension wraps around to meet itself can (as far as we know) feasibly exist, and would result in components that can legally persist without a defined beginning or end.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483398]No reason, but by my logic I would say that they are not all equal.
If they are not equal then some must be greater than others.
If some are greater then others then there is a greatest.
That greatest being wins the competition of might makes right.
Frankly this just makes me think of angels, interesting point, well raised.[/QUOTE]
Comparison using what metric? I would suppose the most rational would be one that compares complexity in some sense, although it would be tough to think of any other metrics that could apply. Complexity may be our best bet because of the statistical implications; simpler universes would appear more frequently (although all possibilities appear infinitely often, you can have different orders of infinity).
Also, why would there only be one? If the only thing external to these self-causing structures is nothing, what possible rule could emerge from nothingness to limit the set to only one element?
Surely you would expect either zero or infinity, and we can rule out zero because we exist.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]Essentially, to our knowledge, all physical object are temporal. That is to say that they change in their properties. In order for something to change, it must have a frame for it to go into. This passing of frames is what we refer to as time. We inextricably link these two in what people like to call "Space-time". The issue with this is that space-time itself bends, and by this virtue seems to be affected by an element of temporality, if not in our sense, then in an extra-dimensional sense in order to deal with relativity. Something which is eternal therefore cannot change as it does not exist within time.[/QUOTE]
What do you mean exactly by changing properties? Which properties?
By this definition, anything that is not subject to time, is incapable of doing anything besides being 'frozen'.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]Causation is simply the idea that something gives reason from something else to be. If you have a non-eternal system, then you have one which has frames that regress (imagine going backwards in time), this regression must end at somepoint in order to avoid absurdity, very few philsophers contest this.[/QUOTE]
What happens before the first 'frame' of time? Nothing? Then isn't time infinite?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]The reason you need a object to give substance to anything else is because the number 5 has never caused anything to happen, neither has the equation E=mc^2.[/QUOTE]
That's because they don't exist. We're talking about things that do exist. You could extend that to people's ideas of numbers and formulas, but then your argument falls apart.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]Before any of that means anything you first need E or m. E and m can't be the self-causal thing because they are temporal, and so must regress to a point where they have a previous frame without their existence.[/QUOTE]
Am I correct in assuming you're defining self-causality as something that created the first frame? Because I'm really struggling to understand what you're implying here. You're saying self-causual can't be aren't temporal and not explaining why, only the affects of it?
What is 'Existence', and why does it require an object that can self-causate?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]What do you know out there that causes itself? It frankly would be quite worrisome if random things started causing themselves to be, we would have horrible logical impossibilities happening and things would not be predictable. For something to be self-causating you need to be able to say that it exists without dependence upon any other external system, numeric or otherwise.[/QUOTE]
I don't know of anything that causes itself. So far reading through we kind of agree that there needs to be some kind of self-causation assuming the universe is temporal. However, you've explicitly ruled out that the universe caused itself because it's temporal, without reason as to why something temporal can't cause itself.
But you didn't actually answer my question, why does this mean something is complex?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]If something is temporal then you can have a string of frames by which you judge what is unfolding. Since it has been reasonably argued before, and I accept, that infinite chains of causal regression do not makes sense, then it stands to reason that there is a self-caused entity which can act upon all the rest of existence to give it the first push of the dominoes. (Perhaps even laying out the dominoes itself)[/QUOTE]
That's a huge jump from 'casual regression doesn't make sense' to self-causality, complex entity that can act upon all the rest of existence. This ignores the fact that an eternal entity can't cause anything as it's frozen without time.
Firstly, there's still the idea that time is finite but there's nothing outside time. There's the idea that humans can't comprehend time. There's the idea that the universe is eternal and you're wrong about your assumptions.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]Eternal is the opposite of temporal. They are mutually exclusive. I am arguing that it is nonsensical to say something that is self-causating is also temporal due to the implication that it once did not exist, and so can never have the chance to create itself.[/QUOTE]
I could say that about the object that caused itself.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]"I am that I am" is the statement of self existence, it is a name used for the uncaused one.[/QUOTE]
Oh, you're assuming the 'uncaused' one is your deity of choice? Can we not do that, and work our way there forwards instead of backwards?
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]Since he(it) is so complex, it is [b]PLAUSIBLE[/b] that he is also sentient.[/QUOTE]
You have not explained why they're not just complex, but also 'so complex', and a being in the first place.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]The universe is temporal, it exists in time.
Eternal is the opposite of temporal.
Therefore the universe is not, and cannot, be eternal.[/QUOTE]
You're going to pull out some logic as to why the creator supposedly has the ability to cause things and change things and not being 'frozen' in time, right?
Look at it this way: The universe has never gained or lost mass, it's always been the same universe but with its pieces rearranged. Like Conway's game of life. So it doesn't change itself, it only 'processes', the same way your creator would.
The advantage to this conclusion is that there's only the universe which is eternal, it's simple, it snuggly fits Occam's razor as it's not inexplicably sentient and doesn't require all these other amazing leaps of faith.
Zenreon's logic is pretty decent in terms of requiring a self-causing entity, although that is assuming that this is a thing that humans can possibly contemplate because it may just be something we think is required.
The main problem with your reasoning here Zenreon (apart from the possibility of a looped time dimension, although your hypothesis can be adapted to not require a finite one) is what I pointed out a while ago (perhaps you missed it):
[QUOTE]The complexity required for it to be self-causing would be orthogonal to the complexity required for it to be sentient. Sentience assumes additional unnecessary complexity.[/QUOTE]
An analogy for that; a PS4 is more complex than a PS3, but does not natively support PS3 games. For a PS4 to support PS3 games it would require even more complexity, because the complexity required for PS4 game support is orthogonal to the complexity required for PS3 game support.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
Here's some more food for thought: what would evoke more complexity, an unbounded (infinite) dimension, or a bounded (finite) one?
Does the space required for the infinite dimension strictly exist outside of the dimension, so does it have cost in terms of complexity?
Does the bounding mechanics of a finite dimension implicate more complexity?
For all those people who think we're intelligently designed or that the universe is fine tuned for life let me just give a quick run down of why we are not intelligently designed and that the universe is not fine tuned for life at all.
Just look at this list and tell me if you really believe we and the universe were designed. Trust me you'd never hire god to build you a dam or a sky scraper... it's probably going to be a poor design.
[B][U]Universe[/U][/B]
1) Most places in the universe will kill life instantely. Just look at the volume of the universe where you can't live, you will die instantely... That's not what I call the garden of eden.
2) Galaxy orbits once every couple hundred million years so you're bound to come close to a supernova that kills everyone on the surface.
3) We're on a collision course with Andromeda...
4) The universe is expanding and speeding up which means we're on a one way trip to oblivion, forget hell and fire, you should be more worried about absolute zero.
[B][U]Earth[/U][/B]
1) Earthquakes, tornados, volcanoes and tsunamis which kill hundreds of thousands of people.
2) We cannot live on two thirds of the Earths surface.
3) Mass extinctions, diseases, climate shift and killer asteroids.
4) 99% of all life that has ever lived on Earth is now extinct.
5) It took ~3.5billion years to make multi-cellular life... That's hardly efficient design if the end product is humans.
[B][U]Humans[/U][/B] (nature killing us all by itself)
1) Aggressive childhood lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, parkinsons and the list is endless.
2) The human eye receives so much praise but anyone who has ever seen the full electromagnetic spectrum would know just how blind we actually are. We are sitting ducks for ionizing radiation, radon ect.
3) We have to eat constantly because we're warm blooded. A crocodile can eat a chicken a month and it's fine.
4) CO, CH4, CO2. These gases, you can't smell them, see them, taste them but if you breath them in you're in trouble.
5) We eat, drink, breath and talk all through the same whole in our face guaranteeing that some percentage of us will choke to death each year.
The universe definitely is not here for us and it wasn't designed. If it was designed then god is a terrible designer who needs to go back to school.
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483349]Events cannot hold properties, only existing objects, whether abstract or otherwise. Events are simply descriptions of objects in time.
Since I am operating with the thought that the object would be neccearily complex I am also taking the stance that such an object could [b]Plausibly[/b] be sentient.[/quote]
What about the fact that sentience cannot come to be without being inanimate matter in the first place? Surely the logic you use when you say that the universe cannot be eternal which we have absolutely no clue about apart from theories is better applied to explain something we do know somethings about? And what about the fact that sentience requires time and space and other fundamental laws of physics to exist? Before sentience there needs to be intelligence and before intelligence there needs to be life, believing something can just have existed forever being sentient is irrational and silly and goes against all we know about sentience.[/QUOTE]
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
I get the whole "if it doesn't exist in time it cannot change" because change is obviously a concept that involves time and space - I don't have a problem with that, I have a problem with you stating that sentience is even possible when that word requires time and space but also so much more
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
besides you can't say that everything that exists has a cause because everything has already existed forever in one form or another so the only way we could know would be to go back to the big bang and check if something caused it, because that is the only "beginning" of any existance we know of
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
uperkurk also makes a good point about the fine-tuning of the universe, yes the universe allows for life to exist and that's pretty damn awesome and we're lucky such a universe exists, but it seems highly unlikely for life to exist for any extended period of time or over any large distance in space or even have a tiny effect of on the universe relative to the actual age, size of this universe full of change.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;43483888]I apologize, I don't think I properly addressed what you were asking, which upon re-reading seems to be a plea for an elaboration on what being eternal entails.
Essentially, to our knowledge, all physical object are temporal. That is to say that they change in their properties. In order for something to change, it must have a frame for it to go into. This passing of frames is what we refer to as time. We inextricably link these two in what people like to call "Space-time". The issue with this is that space-time itself bends, and by this virtue seems to be affected by an element of temporality, if not in our sense, then in an extra-dimensional sense in order to deal with relativity. Something which is eternal therefore cannot change as it does not exist within time.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
Causation is simply the idea that something gives reason from something else to be. If you have a non-eternal system, then you have one which has frames that regress (imagine going backwards in time), this regression must end at somepoint in order to avoid absurdity, very few philsophers contest this. The reason you need a object to give substance to anything else is because the number 5 has never caused anything to happen, neither has the equation E=mc^2. Before any of that means anything you first need E or m. E and m can't be the self-causal thing because they are temporal, and so must regress to a point where they have a previous frame without their existence.
What do you know out there that causes itself? It frankly would be quite worrisome if random things started causing themselves to be, we would have horrible logical impossibilities happening and things would not be predictable. For something to be self-causating you need to be able to say that it exists without dependence upon any other external system, numeric or otherwise.[/quote]
Not a lot "causes" itself in the universe, but I'm willing to argue only the tiniest of fraction of anything happening is caused by anything intelligent being, most of it is just the in-animate universe doing it's thing.
[quote]"I am that I am" is the statement of self existence, it is a name used for the uncaused one.
Since he(it) is so complex, it is [b]PLAUSIBLE[/b] that he is also sentient.[/quote]
Nah, complexity does not magically make sentience possible.
[quote]The universe is temporal, it exists in time.
Eternal is the opposite of temporal.
Therefore the universe is not, and cannot, be eternal.[/QUOTE]
Except that the universe does not have to be infinitely old to be eternal, there is nothing that implies the universe has to be even if it doesn't make sense to you, and believe me there is a lot of things that does not make sense but is true nonetheless.
[editline]10th January 2014[/editline]
Coming back to sentience, ignoring all the other points I've made, here is the most fundamental reason as to why I don't see how sentience could exist the way you describe it: Sentience requires thought and thought requires both time and space.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
