Why is it that in current events politics regarding god, nobody talks about this argument?

Why is it that in current events politics regarding god, nobody talks about this argument?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=AsFCSvqsqFA
secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

cuz no one can prove or disprove god and arguing about it is a tedious waste of time

this

>what is the primary mover

The pic refers to mathematical proof of god

Because atheistfags get so upset when you ask "what caused the Big Bang?"

inb4 casuistry

>Why is it that in current events politics regarding god, nobody talks about this argument?

'cause.

>Casuistry is reasoning used to resolve moral problems by extracting or extending theoretical rules from particular instances and applying these rules to new instances. The term is also commonly used as a pejorative to criticize the use of clever but unsound reasoning (alleging implicitly the inconsistent—or outright specious—application of rule to instance), especially in relation to moral questions (see sophistry).

If basic logic and observation of natural phenomena is theoretical then all science is theoretical

An uncaused cause is an metaphysical necessity.

Because there is nothing to say the 'prime mover' is your concept of God. Could be a computer program by the exact same logic.

The pic is meaningless shit.
t. mathematician.

>Could be a computer program by the exact same logic

It can't, a computer program implies a computer, which implies matter which implies space which implies an unmoved mover

>there is nothing to say the 'prime mover' is your concept of God
My concept of God is literally a prime mover, im not arguing for a specific religion, just for theism in general

libtards know everything.

Atheists aren't smart enough to consider this argument. They just turn their brains off and cover their ears so they don't have to face it

explain, you might make me change my mind once again, i was an atheist till i heard about this and realized it made sense and i couldn't argue against it

Pic is full of meaning.
t. Double mathematician

Shieeeeeet
t. Nigger

D: !!!

I'll prove that god exists or doesn't exist.

But first you gotta define 'exist' and 'god'. GO

The Big Bang is the uncaused cause.
Or perhaps, the causes are circular.

>The Big Bang is the uncaused cause.
refer to the last two boxes of this >Or perhaps, the causes are circular.
This is sci-fi

for god refer to the last two boxes
exist i dunno, to happen rather than not?

Even if you believe the multiple big bang theory, all that matter had to come from somewhere, and something had to cause the first explosion.

Cause and effect is the basis for nested fractal systems. The information of the first cause is carried through all consequential effects and future causes.

But its only through ones observation that time exists. Time is thought and time is light. We observe light and we experience thought. The thought and the photon (particle of light/EM field) are self similar objects in this fractal we exist in that is reality.

how does this disprove it though?
i agree with all you say expect the nature of thought, there's no basis for that theory other than acid trips

>Time is thought and time is light
also this too, time seems to be a measurement of state changes

Our universe has a specific amount of matter, something had to have decided that

I was merely saying in an antagonistic way that your picture neither explains nor proves anything. Your second picture at least explains things, but I think the claim that the chain of causes can't be infinitely long is unsupported. Especially since in mathematics, things involving infinities tend to have unintuitive properties.

-1 is the integer that comes after -2.
-2 is the integer that comes after -3.
And so on, but there's no reason for me to conclude that this chain can't be infinitely long, otherwise we could never get to 0, and therefore there must be a smallest integer.

I can resolve this by invoking some primary causal numbers 0 and 1 and every other integer is the result of adding or subtracting 1 enough times from zero, but I'm merely assuming the existence of these numbers axiomatically.

Maybe instead of assuming that God set things in motion at some point in time, I can assume instead the world exists right now (I think this is a reasonable assumption) and time extends infinitely into the future and past, like integers extend infinitely into the positives and negatives.

I'm really just making shit up right now. But remember Godel's incompleteness theorem. Any formal system will have statements that can be neither proven nor disproven within that system. Maybe the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven. That's why people have faith.

High energy physicist here. There is a credible theory which requires neither pre-existing mass nor an unmoved creator and works within the existing laws of physics and also asserts that no intelligence had a part in making the universe.

Empty space isn't really empty. It basically works off asserting that zero point energy (or vacuum energy) can spontaneously revert entropy by pure quantum fluctuation to a very low entropy state (ie. singularity) which then sets off a universe "instance". Since energy is just a different state of mass, depending on the observed field, vacuum energy can essentially create a big bang out of thing air by chance.

All parts of this are affirmed to be working like that, the only key ingredient would be a LOT of time passing, but if you virtually have "eternity" to wait for your existence, that doesn't seem too long.

>Nobody can prove or disprove [entity defined to be unprovable] and arguing about it is a tedious waste of time.

Are agnostics are just pc atheists? The world may never know!

>Any formal system will have statements that can be neither proven nor disproven within that system

This is simply false. Have you ever studied logic?

>Evoking (one of) Godel's incompleteness theorems in an argument about god

Probably not.

So what created time, and that zero point energy empty space? You can't assume that those were always constants.

Maybe because Hume demonstrated the problems associated with the concept of causation.
Even granting that causation is a meaningful concept, why couldn't we have an endless chain of causes? Nothing a priori forbids this.
Finally, even if there were an uncaused cause, what guarantees that it has God's properties (omniscience, omnipotence, etc.)?

>You can't assume that those were always constants.
That is what the theory asserts. Empty space having energy is a consequence of the underlying rules of nature, that part isn't that crazy even. In fact, we've made machines that explicibly take advantage of this little quirk, google "quantum refrigerator pump" for more info. It doesn't concern empty space, but it's the same principle, the fact that no motion or energy state can be absolute zero in the universe, and it is possible to extract this energy.

That being said, the time part is a lot more muddy, we don't really have a good indicator of what time actually is, the only thing that currently ties time to any existing law of nature is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but since we assert in the theory that the 2nd law is incomplete by means of spontaneous entropy reversal, we kind of end up with a very vague definition of time.

The best I could come up with without running into some retarded detail is that time isn't really a "thing" it's more like how we experience the universe. Similar to how observations collapse quantum wave functions, our observations of the universe have the appearence of time passing, but it's not actually a physical entity.

It should also be noted that there is exactly ZERO proof for this theory right now, as there is zero proof for any other theory regarding the beginning of the universe at this moment as well, we're dealing with very abstract and theoretical physics here.

I just wanted to illustrate that an initial mover is not necessary to explain the current universe. There might still BE one, but it's not, with our current understanding of physics, strictly necessary.

But aren't the properties of energy the way they are because of the universe?
If it was before existence was even a thing, they wouldn't have those properties, would they? Honest question.

t. borderline retard

Well, the assumption is that "empty space" just was always there and that the current universe, all the galaxies and stars is just a temporary excitation in an otherwise infinite sea of nothing.

So the logic behind this is that "nothing" was always there, and the rest pops into existence every now and then.

Of course if you believe that existence itself, that is the laws of the universe, the empty space, the fields, etc. all ALSO must have started at some point, then we've reached the end of what the theory can explain.

In a long winded expplanation:

Have you experienced a passage of time that was not composed of thought? Has anything experienced time without it? When you sleep does time and thought go away?

Time from a physical point of view is also directly related to light. This is how we see matter and how we take measurements to determine distance. Distance is 3 dimensional space, but space-time comes in when you consider the speed limit to light. And if you move fast in relation to it, time is effected.

It is a simple relation, that the photon is self similar to a thought and that is what i meant by time is both thought and light.

It doesnt disprove anything

I see, I just assumed that those laws are contingent to existence. That might not be the case though, I don't know.
This is kinda pointless.

because the exact same problem exists with atheism

No, I haven't taken a course in logic. OP kindly asked me to explain my snark, so I was writing the first thing that cam to mind. What have I missed? That the formal system must also be consistent? That certain arithmetic must be performable within it? Whatever. My point is merely that depending on what axioms we assume, God or a 'primary mover' isn't necessary to explain the universe, and depending on what axioms we assume, God's existence may be unprovable.

>This is kinda pointless.
Pretty much. There's tons of multiverse theories too that have ZERO proof or any shred of evidence and are just hypothetical scenaries based on conjectures based on other theories based on some consequence based on on some law of nature.

Most of this shit is so detached from reality it's really not worth thinking too hard about it.

Does sound relate in any way to this?

I still liked your posts Germanbro, they were interesting.

Did you get a decent job by being a physicist?
I've been considering studying it.

I don't understand this image, OP. Is actual water potential ice? If so, potential things can do stuff contrary to what the image says.

A train with an infinite number of boxcars certainly could have an engine. It could even have infinitely many engines and could therefore move.

An infinitely long paintbrush could be guided by infinitely many hands.

This image talks about a bizarre universe where infinitely many things exist and infinitely large objects exist, but then lacks the imagination to explain how things could work and therefore assumes it couldn't work.

In the world of concepts... consider this simple basic fact

There could never BE "empty space" or "Nothing", the absence of everything would includes 'being'.

Its a null state but conceptually impossible to reach, try removing everything and it is a limit to infinity.

Or alternatively there may always be a remainder of some kind.

If you were the remover of everything once you were finished you would have to remove yourself, or as god, you would disassemble yourself until you were no longer the remover of everything, leaving some remainder of energy with perhaps a different quality behind.

Is there any system that could reduce itself down to nothing? The environment of the system included of course...

It's much more math than you imagine. It's like 99.5% math. The actual cool publically presentable shit is very rare.

Also, most of anything you do results in failure. Science is a very tedious process of elimination. Most experiments and theories you chase will be failures. This is by design, because you want to find the one in a million set of parameters which produces a little blip on a monitor and it's faster to just start bruteforcing things instead of guesstimating the underlying structural behaviors of matter or whatever you're doing at the time.

But I guess we have this particle accelerator to work with, so it's something.

Incompleteness only applies to recursively enumerable axiom systems powerful enough to do Peano arithmetic (approximately.)

A trivial system such as "dense linear order no endpoints" is provably complete. Trivial on the other end of the spectrum, complete arithmetic - the set of all true sentences pertaining to the naturals - is also complete, (but not RE, so it's list of axioms is infinite and has no algorithm to write them down - yikes!) Any attempt to formalize philosophy would probably yield a trivial system whose axioms would be subject to informal debate all over again.

Sorry for snapping at you. I encourage you to take a course in logic at some point - it's fun stuff!

Maybe at some point in the future. I'm sure I'd enjoy it. For now, there are already more courses I'd like to take than I have time for.

Idiots. It was shown in fucking caveman days that there is no difference between the argument for infinite causes and an uncaused cause.

Sound is a more primal and basic concept, but it is much more mysterious. Vibration and oscillation in air pressure is what we call sound. That oscillatory waveform can be found in liquids, solids, and in the electromagnetic field itself i.e light. But it is at the limits of the photon (Quantum electrodynamics) and the limits of vibration that we see new, surprising, emergent behavior. This emergent behavior, specifically how virtual photons mediate the electromagentic field at a quantum level (i.e. are exchanged between electrons as they increase and decrease energy) and vibration reduced to the mysterious collapse of the wavefunction (which then in turn is what gives off light).

There are more examples of sound creating light at a physical level if you research sonoluminescence.

> Desire to know more intensifies

Isn't analytic philosophy more or less the attempt to find a trivial system of axioms? And wouldn't it be possible to look at the outcomes of those trivial systems as a means for discerning which axioms you wanted to adopt for one's life/company/country? History then would be like a kind of algorithm tester, where we can look back in time and see
> Oh yeah, they adopted trivial system A, but look at what happened to their ability to defend themselves in war! We should adopt trivial system B instead
> Yeah, but trivial system B never adopted paper currency, if we want the outcomes of individual/group/country C, we should adopt trivial system C

Well, this is way beyond my understanding, at least at the moment

But,

even though maths can operate with infinites, there's an infinite between 1 and 2 right? Which would mean that you wouldn't be able to walk from your seat to your nearest wall without reaching the end of an infinite?

Yet you can, so what the hell does that mean?

You missed the point on that section, read the title again. It was saying that an infinite chain of INERT members cannot bring potentials into actuality, and without a cause, every member of a casual chain is inert. Therefore a First Cause is needed.

Each of the solutions you provided include a 'first cause' (but each of those causes you provided requires one previous, like coal for the car or an arm for the brush) and therefore doesn't refute the point, but rather misses it. He's saying a universe cannot sustain itself through evanescent physical matter alone, god is needed, by whatever name or concept you think of him as.

It's a roundabout and imperfect way of saying 'ex nihilo nihil fit' - 'out of nothing, nothing comes' I.e. an uncaused first cause is required and is the core of any pure philosophy.

1. There is nothing """mathematical""" about your pic, you're probably thinking logic.

2. It has nothing logical about it either, when you assume that some causes might be uncaused, you eliminate the need for
the uncaused cause.

>That's why people have faith.
Also, to this i would argue the Thomas the Apostle thing (funny thing that Aquinas, to whom the OP theory is credited to, was also named Thomas)

>24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus[a]), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

>But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

>26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

>28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

>29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I guess that faith is a shorter path but there also is a path through proof

But the "infinite causes" argument is incomprehensible by the human intellect and therefore absurd.
Moreover, when presented with two equivalent hypothesis, we ought to favor the simpler one.

Who is to say that God has to be the uncaused cause? Perhaps the uncaused cause is the universe itself.

>monkeys in charge of doing math

That definition can also apply to the concept of 'collective consciousness'. Which we can observe happening in schools of fish, beehives, and Sup Forums. Even if you're a solipsist, this definition would still apply to your own consciousness.

So yes, this god exists.

A god may or may not exist. The Abrahamic god on the other hand certainly doesn't exist.

Isn't Logic a branch of math?

>when you assume that some causes might be uncaused, you eliminate the need for
the uncaused cause.

You only eliminate the paradox when you involve a cause with certain characteristics that we normally abscribe to what we call "God"


i lost you, what definition?

Okay, but can an infinite chain of non-inert members bring potentials into actuality? I say it can. That's the point I'm making. There's no need to assume a beginning to the chain.

Math isn't real.

A

How can you know that if you're not real?

This.

There are some pretty wacky beliefs out there, but nothing makes me care less about a person or their feelings than finding out they believe in Yahweh. Out of all the religions on this planet, despite being the most prominent, it's actually the most ridiculous.

IMO when you factor out the fables the concept of Yahweh makes a lot of sense, (others do too, not saying its unique) as far as i get it its a concept of god beyond space, meaning its uncreated, unbeing, un"material", etc; the problem i think is the church made it to be a being with wishes aligned to the poltical agenda of Vatican; i remember seeing on the cathedral infront of Madrid's king's palace, a sign that said "from now on, Mary was a virgin and whoever says she was not will be put to death" from like XV centhury

>the universe itself

you are getting close. Think more along the lines of the totality of the multiverse

universe comes from a greek word meaning "everything"

cause the universe is the consequence?

latin, not greek, sorry

>He thinks time "began"
lol

Its literally fucking nothing. Quite magical if you ask me

>Any formal system will have statements that can be neither proven nor disproven within that system
>This is simply false. Have you ever studied logic?

Sp you can definately give proof that god does or doesnt exist?

I don't know if it's known whether spacetime is continuous or discrete. Maybe when I cross my room, I haven't moved an infinite number of infinitessimal distances. Maybe I merely moved a very large number of very small distances. Maybe there aren't an infinite number of possible positions I could occupy in my rooms. There might be a minimum distance the particles in my body can move. I'm too ignorant of quantum physics to answer this, and maybe physicists don't know either.

Energy has always existed.
energy is pulled together by gravity.
gravity condenses all matter into a single point
the single point reaches an unstable threshold and explodes, you have a big bang.

now what they need to explain is how a sterile environment gave birth to life. They can't.

it matters not whether you call it God, the universe, dao, emptiness, whatever the fuck you imagine it as or project onto it. Whatever it is, is.

youtube.com/watch?v=AsFCSvqsqFA

because its resolution is a simple issue of drawing another line from the infinity sign back to "uncaused cause"

if it helps to get rid of nihilism and degeneracy then it should be studied

Randomness will fluke order given infinite time. No intelligence needed.

If you can name one non-inert member, I.e. a cause that requires no previous cause then sure, why not? But people have been trying in vain for literally thousands of years. Good luck though.

I would say that physicist user here comes closest, but then again, the theory he refers to is based on quantum fluctuation and energy. Not even getting into the Pollock-esque work that is quantum physics, energy is woefully undefined. Try to look up a definition of energy that will tell you what it actually IS and how it is separate from a lack there of. Most definitions are pure sophistry and verbiage, as it should be, with our limited consciousness.

>Can you define it?
>A KING
HAHAHAAHAH


>it matters not whether you call it God, the universe, dao, emptiness, whatever the fuck you imagine it as or project onto it. Whatever it is, is.

I like this a lot, i call it "HAPPENING"

Need a space for randomness to exist within

I have faith
The whole idea of believing in god is believing in him by faith and only faith. It's redundant and meaningless to try to prove his existence.

>no one can prove or disprove god

this argument undeniably proves his existence, so your point falls on it's own sword you damned fool.

I have an inside joke with a friend about this video. we use the term negus to refer to that which is ineffable/ultimate/infinite

>Maybe I merely moved a very large number of very small distances

But couldn't you recursively subdivide this very small distances in smaller ones for ever? Wouldn't this make any quantity infinite? My point is, isn't infinity everywhere once you use an infinite scale?

At any point in time, the universe is made up of a collection of particles in motion (i.e. not inert). Before that point in time, it was still made up of particles in motion. This describes an infinite chain of non-inert members. What is the problem with this?

The positions and directions in which these particles are moving are dependent on the positions and directions at the point in time prior. We may go all the way back in time, as far as we care to imagine, infinitely. Physicists will say if we look back far enough, all this matter (or energy or whatever) was condensed to more or less a single point, and before that we don't really know what happened.

I can prove god's existence, but to do so I have to disprove yours.

I'm very late to the thread but the primary mover does not need to exist in the universe as we know it for one simple reason only. Thanks to the way quantum mechanics works the future outcome affects the past event. Cause and effect are also effect and cause. Time is a meqningless vector basically. Or more accurately time moves both direction. If you apply quantum mechanics to the natural conclusion what you get is the end of the universe caused the begining. The universe created itself by ending itself by creating itself by ending itself... etc. While this makes no sense in classical physics this is all perfectly logical in quantum mechanics. While no one can prove or disprove god in the absense of hard evidence assuming the process with the least amount of steps is the logical one. God is an extra step until proven otherwise, ergo he to be assumed nonexistant until he shows himself.

Prove that the original cause has to be god.

By your own logic, we ought to choose the simplest hypothesis which would entail destruction of a single primeval atom.

All science IS theoretical, moron. Science doesn't provide concrete explanations, it just creates increasingly accurate approximations of what actually happens. Sometimes we get very far into a theory and new information comes to light that proves it wrong, like a penta-elemental basis for chemistry and medicine, or newtonian physics.

The problem is though that the conception of God, literally capital-G God, implies that God is a distinct being, which raises the question of "Why does God exist?" which is the same problem that physicists run into when explaining the Big Bang. Neither Theism or Atheism nor really agnosticism are tenable positions because they all revert down to a central question of "Why does XYZ exist?"

To which "It just does" is not really answer, but is the only one provided.

You are thinking too current year, science builds bridges and skyscrapers and computers, it WORKS when done correctly

>Sometimes we get very far into a theory and new information comes to light that proves it wrong
I think this can be explained by probability, i mean Newtonian physics has been disproved yet it makes stuff work, doesn't it? Maybe its 70% correct

Unfortunately, it's not really possible to extract the energy, as it is still conserved. I spent a lot of time, too, on the ideas of getting a universe from nothing via vacuum state behavior (and in particular squeezed vacuum states), but there was just no way around this. But perhaps an even bigger problem with this plan is that it is a particle focused idea, when particles are insufficient to explain all field behavior. (Due to non-perturbative solutions, etc.) And the idea of getting say electrons with an equal number of positrons (in general, due to symmetries, they need not be positrons, but that's a tangent), looks appealing, but hasn't dealt with where the more physically real field comes from.

An interesting idea, and worthy of time, but not worthy of Krauss's claims that it provides an origin of the universe.

I don't know man, ive heard too many scientist say "if you don't undestand qunatum physics then you understand it"

Your post kind of sounds like new-age spiritualism, no offense

>capital-G God, implies that God is a distinct being
you are right, i just do it out of respect, i didn't want to imply ts a being, as a being would need a universe to exist within by definition, which would start the causation loop again,

i think its essence is outside physical comprehension, which is why Big Bang stops at Big Bang, cause physicists aren't metaphysicists

Oh buddy, i'm sorry, I should have explained better before.
If you see back to user's handy infographic, you will see the previous section, where it says that all members of a causal link are inert without the previous member in the chain acting on them.
I didn't mean physically inert, but 'causally inert'. We don't typically think of that word being used in this context I know.

And yes, the big bang is a theory, but a seriously incomplete one, especially in a philosophic sense. There are logical and otherwise sound-minded individuals who will say in the same breath they have no clue of what happened before the 'big bang's and still rule out the possibility of God, even as an impersonal Cause.
The point is there is a problem of the big bang being a First Cause, and that is what led to that 'primed' state where space-time was about to go off in an explosion in the first place.
Antiquated philosophers, and I mean ANCIENT philosophers explain this by dividing the world into the objectice material world, and the Subjective, from which all proceeds.
But that is very complicated and too much to explain to someone through a shitpost. I encourage you not to merely agree with or disagree with me based on what little I could share before I went to bed, but decide for and by yourself through your own efforts and research.

I do warn you, well known sites like Wikipedia and others have a horrendous progressive and liberal bias in how they frame things. It would mean extra work for you, but avoid such places while searching.

I think that some variations of Goedel's incompleteness theorem are indeed relevant to arguments about God in the following way: it is a heavy blow to the materialistic view that the universe exhibits a kind of "closure", such that everything that happens inside is explainable by what happens inside. But by demonstrating that the universe cannot contain it's own truth function, etc, it almost implicates an external world beyond it that could contain that truth function.

(As you say, some systems such as a form of group theory are complete. But it seems clear that our universe is at least complex enough to embed Robinson arithmetic.)

I can imagine subdividing space into smaller and smaller lengths infinitely, I just don't know if it's physically possible. I might be moving around my room in the way a king moves around a chessboard -- in (very very small) discrete steps.

I don't really know why we're talking about this. If I really moved an infinite number of infinitessimal distances in crossing my room, I don't know what meaning that has, if any, or what that has to do with my original point. I was talking about integers for a reason, and not rational or real numbers. The fact that each integer succeeds another doesn't imply that there must be a first integer. If I assume there is a smallest integer, I get something like the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, ...). Otherwise I get the integers as they are usually understood (..., -2, 1, 0, 1, 2, ...).

Likewise, I say we can assume there is a first cause if we'd like, but there is no need to. I see no inconsistency in saying that the state of the universe now is the result of how it was immediately prior, and so on for infinite with no first cause.

Those scientists are just... Lets just call them what they are, idiots.

secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/

Just to show the effect is proven.

Scientists who dont understand how quantum mechanics works simply dont understand how to abandon logic as we know it. You just have to accept that it isnt going to make sense and then you can think in its own twisted rules.

Because this argument has been, in several instances, shown to be faulty and oversimplified.

It's the fucking theological/philosophical counterpart to "if the world is in debt, who does it owe money to" or "why can't we tax the rich and raise minimum wage".