Eternity (Origins)
Dhw (under "Intelligence"): Alternatively, unconscious energy produces matter, which by its very nature is constantly changing. Maybe matter follows its own natural laws of self-organization. We humans see what happens, and so we extrapolate laws from what we see. If you insist that you can't make laws without a lawmaker, the atheist has every right to ask what made the maker of the laws. If you insist that consciousness had to be designed, who designed the consciousness of the designer? You would like to see this as an escape route. It's not. It's a logical impasse.-DAVID: You are escaping by using infinite regress. There must be an eternal first cause which provides information, not disorganization.-I've started a new thread because it seems to me that the implications of "eternal" merit a thread of their own. To understand the agnostic viewpoint, we need to go back to a subject we have already discussed and, in my view, not resolved satisfactorily.-If first cause consciousness has existed for ever and ever and ever, the alleged 13.7 billion years of our universe do not even constitute a single grain of sand in the desert. What do we imagine the first cause mind will have been doing with itself for ever and ever and ever? Well, all we know is that it has created this universe. So it's not unreasonable to assume that it's created universes before ours: zillions and zillions of them. -Once you accept that as being reasonable, we can turn our attention to first cause non-conscious energy which has existed for ever and ever and ever. What has it been doing with itself for ever and ever and ever? Well, all we know is that it has created this universe. So it's not unreasonable to assume that it's created universes before ours: zillions and zillions of them. And given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of universes, it is not unreasonable to assume that sooner or later you will get the organization we have in our particular one. No, I do not believe in chance, any more than I believe in God. But I see no reason to dismiss either hypothesis, and if you can accept the reasonableness of conscious first cause energy producing countless universes, you will have to accept the reasonableness of unconscious first cause energy doing the same. A lot of strange things could happen when energy transmutes itself into matter for ever and ever and ever. -Of course eternity offers you infinite regress, and you can only end the retrospective cycle of effect-cause-effect-cause by settling on a first cause. But the notion of an eternal first cause is as open to atheism as it is to theism.
Eternity
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, November 20, 2013, 15:53 (4019 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I've started a new thread because it seems to me that the implications of "eternal" merit a thread of their own. To understand the agnostic viewpoint, we need to go back to a subject we have already discussed and, in my view, not resolved satisfactorily. > > dhw: If first cause consciousness has existed for ever and ever and ever, the alleged 13.7 billion years of our universe do not even constitute a single grain of sand in the desert. What do we imagine the first cause mind will have been doing with itself for ever and ever and ever? Well, all we know is that it has created this universe. -All we can know and work from is a first cause created this universe. We can't know or even reasonably make suggestions, except the St. Thomas approach as the maker of laws and information seems very reasonable to me,since we find those laws by math.-Note I have removed your amorphous suggestions about how the First cause stayed busy for eons. Stick with us and how we are. Work back from there. > > dhw: Of course eternity offers you infinite regress, and you can only end the retrospective cycle of effect-cause-effect-cause by settling on a first cause. But the notion of an eternal first cause is as open to atheism as it is to theism.-Not with St. Tom. Atheism simply says we don't know and can't know anything, so lets assume nothing and believe in nothing. That's easy. But atheism's reaction is in part a reaction to the pomposity of religions, the know-it-alls. Step back as I have and start afresh, no religious presumptions. What can we reasonably expect the minimal attributes of a first cause might be based on what we see exists? Intelligence. I can go no further.
Eternity
dhw: What do we imagine the first cause mind will have been doing with itself for ever and ever and ever? Well, all we know is that it has created this universe. DAVID: All we can know and work from is a first cause created this universe. We can't know or even reasonably make suggestions, except the St. Thomas approach as the maker of laws and information seems very reasonable to me,since we find those laws by math. Note I have removed your amorphous suggestions about how the First cause stayed busy for eons. Stick with us and how we are. Work back from there.-We certainly can't know what the first cause is, which does indeed mean we can only make suggestions. You seem to be saying that St Thomas's suggestion is the only reasonable one, any other is "amorphous" (what could be more amorphous than your God?), and you won't consider it! Why is it unreasonable to suggest that throughout the "for ever and ever and ever" past there might have been countless other universes, since we know that the first cause has produced this one? -dhw: ...the notion of an eternal first cause is as open to atheism as it is to theism. DAVID: Not with St. Tom. Atheism simply says we don't know and can't know anything, so lets assume nothing and believe in nothing. That's easy. -Not so. Folk like Dawkins believe that our universe is the result of natural laws that govern matter, there is no universal intelligence, and eventually the mysteries of life and consciousness will be explained by materialism. They can argue that an infinite number of universes going back through eternity is bound eventually to produce one that will harbour life (see next comment for continuation). DAVID: [...] What can we reasonably expect the minimal attributes of a first cause might be based on what we see exists? Intelligence. I can go no further.-The second phase, following on from the umpteenth zillionth universe being able to harbour life, is life itself, and this is where the origin of "intelligence" becomes the focal point. You insist that intelligence was always there, somehow. "First cause" explains nothing. I see no difference between this "somehow" and the "somehow" whereby intelligence evolved within materials. They are equally "amorphous". But if we are to go purely by "what we see exists", we can only go by life itself, which clearly shows materials cooperating to create ever greater complexity. We do not see a universal intelligence ... we only see individual intelligences. Were they inserted divinely from outside, or did they evolve naturally from inside? I don't think we can answer that, and so ... if I may echo you ... I can go no further.
Eternity
by David Turell , Thursday, November 21, 2013, 15:36 (4018 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We certainly can't know what the first cause is, which does indeed mean we can only make suggestions. You seem to be saying that St Thomas's suggestion is the only reasonable one, any other is "amorphous" (what could be more amorphous than your God?), and you won't consider it! Why is it unreasonable to suggest that throughout the "for ever and ever and ever" past there might have been countless other universes, since we know that the first cause has produced this one? -Because you are inventing suppostions. Stick only to what we know and then look back for what might be attributed to the result. Don't invent other results. It only confuses philosophic debate. > > dhw; Not so. Folk like Dawkins believe that our universe is the result of natural laws that govern matter, there is no universal intelligence, and eventually the mysteries of life and consciousness will be explained by materialism. They can argue that an infinite number of universes going back through eternity is bound eventually to produce one that will harbour life (see next comment for continuation).-Yes, they can bet on chance and have their on conclusions as to origin but infinite preceding universes is like adding suppostions like the multiverse, or Steinhardt's bouncing baby, for which he admits it is a thought full of holes:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029402.900-no-need-for-inflation-if-cosmos-was-a-bouncing-baby.html#.UmhXdjnn_cs-> > dhw: "First cause" explains nothing. I see no difference between this "somehow" and the "somehow" whereby intelligence evolved within materials. They are equally "amorphous". But if we are to go purely by "what we see exists", we can only go by life itself, which clearly shows materials cooperating to create ever greater complexity. We do not see a universal intelligence ... we only see individual intelligences. Were they inserted divinely from outside, or did they evolve naturally from inside? I don't think we can answer that, and so ... if I may echo you ... I can go no further.-If you accept Aristotle's cause and effect, then there is a chain of contingency. If you reject the concept, then you have chosen to go back to chance. You can't have both ways. As for evolving intelligence, this is just as mysterious as speciation, for which we have no answer. Species are there, so we know it happened. Intelligence is there, but there is no existing theory that says it evolved. That is the Wilsonian theory. Intelligence must involve information. Where did the informtion come from? Same old question. It must be supplied by intelligence. First cause must have had intelligence with information. I can't excape that reasoning.
Eternity
dhw: Why is it unreasonable to suggest that throughout the "for ever and ever and ever" past there might have been countless other universes, since we know that the first cause has produced this one? DAVID: Because you are inventing suppostions. Stick only to what we know and then look back for what might be attributed to the result. Don't invent other results. It only confuses philosophic debate.-All the suppositions are invented and geared to what brought our universe and life into existence. Your invented supposition is an eternal intelligence, based in your case on the unlikelihood of chance. An atheist is perfectly entitled to challenge this argument with his own invented supposition - if one universe in eternity, why not others, vastly reducing the odds against chance? There is of course no more evidence of their existence than of your (hidden) God's existence, but if we stick to what we know, we cannot go beyond the reality of this universe and life. All the rest is supposition and philosophical debate ... including your God.-Dhw: Folk like Dawkins believe that our universe is the result of natural laws that govern matter, there is no universal intelligence, and eventually the mysteries of life and consciousness will be explained by materialism. They can argue that an infinite number of universes going back through eternity is bound eventually to produce one that will harbour life.-DAVID: Yes, they can bet on chance and have their on conclusions as to origin but infinite preceding universes is like adding suppostions like the multiverse, or Steinhardt's bouncing baby, for which he admits it is a thought full of holes: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029402.900-no-need-for-inflation-if-cosmos-was-...-ALL the suppositions are thoughts full of holes. That is why there is no consensus. We know our universe is here. An eternal self-aware creator is an "added supposition", and is just one of various speculations as to how our universe may have come into being.-dhw: "First cause" explains nothing. I see no difference between this "somehow" and the "somehow" whereby intelligence evolved within materials. They are equally "amorphous". DAVID: If you accept Aristotle's cause and effect, then there is a chain of contingency. If you reject the concept, then you have chosen to go back to chance. -I have chosen nothing, and I do not reject the chain of cause and effect. I simply dispute the claim that the only possible first cause is conscious energy. The atheist's choice of chance is not a rejection of cause and effect; it is a rejection of your version of the first cause.-DAVID: As for evolving intelligence, this is just as mysterious as speciation, for which we have no answer. Species are there, so we know it happened. Intelligence is there, but there is no existing theory that says it evolved. That is the Wilsonian theory. What do atheists attribute both intelligence and speciation to if not evolution? They even hope to find the material source! At what point and how intelligence might have evolved is another matter. DAVID: Intelligence must involve information. Where did the informtion come from? Same old question. It must be supplied by intelligence. First cause must have had intelligence with information. I can't excape that reasoning.-"Information" is the in-word these days. Perhaps it's time for you to tell us what information you are talking about. An infinity of mindless matter would contain infinite amounts of information. Only intelligence would be aware of that information. The burning question is not where information came from, but where intelligence came from.
Eternity
by David Turell , Friday, November 22, 2013, 19:42 (4017 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; "Information" is the in-word these days. Perhaps it's time for you to tell us what information you are talking about. An infinity of mindless matter would contain infinite amounts of information. Only intelligence would be aware of that information. The burning question is not where information came from, but where intelligence came from.-That is correct. Do you really understand what the word information as used in my discusdsion implies? It is the plan by which life operates. It is the laws by which the universe operates. See Tony's response. Plans are information that are put into a computer, DNA in this case. They do not grow by chance. They require a mind. That is why I keep referring to St. Thomas. Following this reasoning leads to a mental first cause.
Eternity
dhw; "Information" is the in-word these days. Perhaps it's time for you to tell us what information you are talking about. An infinity of mindless matter would contain infinite amounts of information. Only intelligence would be aware of that information. The burning question is not where information came from, but where intelligence came from.-DAVID: That is correct. Do you really understand what the word information as used in my discusdsion implies? It is the plan by which life operates. It is the laws by which the universe operates. See Tony's response. Plans are information that are put into a computer, DNA in this case. They do not grow by chance. They require a mind. That is why I keep referring to St. Thomas. Following this reasoning leads to a mental first cause.-"Plans" and "laws" are loaded terms, because of course they imply intelligent design, but the atheist case is that there is no planning. Dawkins says there are estimated to be 100 billion galaxies in our universe alone (disregarding the zillions of universes that may have preceded our own), and atheists argue that the "laws" are natural and not divine (i.e. that is how materials behave). You have agreed that nobody knows where intelligence comes from. And so a reasonable atheist counter to St Thomas would be that instead of an inexplicable intelligence preceding the birth of the universe, we have a chance constellation (no plan, just one out of billions and billions of possibilities) capable of harbouring life, and an inexplicably evolving intelligence that uses the information contained in the mindless universe. It's one inexplicable intelligence against another.
Eternity
by David Turell , Sunday, November 24, 2013, 01:03 (4015 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:"Plans" and "laws" are loaded terms, because of course they imply intelligent design, but the atheist case is that there is no planning. Dawkins says there are estimated to be 100 billion galaxies in our universe alone (disregarding the zillions of universes that may have preceded our own), and atheists argue that the "laws" are natural and not divine (i.e. that is how materials behave). -The reason the atheists have fought against the idea of fine tuning, and Vic Stenger has written a book filled with errors denying fine tuning exists, and they also add multiverses to the mix is that they know that the number of galaxies in this universe is not enough to overcome the odds against chance. It is too bad you do not follow Strassler who explains how theoretical quantum physicists invent imaginary worlds to help them understand this world. This world is very complexly ( A word?) organized at its basic levels and studying alien states of matter in imagined universes helps explain this one. My point is they are using other 'laws' than the rules of conduct for matter they find here. Paul Davies questions the origin of those local laws, and he is not a theist although he borders on deism.
Eternity
dhw:"Plans" and "laws" are loaded terms, because of course they imply intelligent design, but the atheist case is that there is no planning. Dawkins says there are estimated to be 100 billion galaxies in our universe alone (disregarding the zillions of universes that may have preceded our own), and atheists argue that the "laws" are natural and not divine (i.e. that is how materials behave). -DAVID: The reason the atheists have fought against the idea of fine tuning, and Vic Stenger has written a book filled with errors denying fine tuning exists, and they also add multiverses to the mix is that they know that the number of galaxies in this universe is not enough to overcome the odds against chance. It is too bad you do not follow Strassler who explains how theoretical quantum physicists invent imaginary worlds to help them understand this world. This world is very complexly ( A word?) organized at its basic levels and studying alien states of matter in imagined universes helps explain this one. My point is they are using other 'laws' than the rules of conduct for matter they find here. Paul Davies questions the origin of those local laws, and he is not a theist although he borders on deism.-Perhaps the reason atheists fight the idea of fine tuning is that the expression implies a fine tuner! Nobody can possibly deny that our universe works in such a way as to support life, because hey ho, our universe supports life. But nobody actually knows how many galaxies there are (I've seen one estimate of 500 billion!) and nobody knows if or how many other universes have preceded our own, so it's not possible to calculate odds. Nor is it clear to me how other laws in imagined universes explain why this universe had to have been designed by your God. And is it not possible that other laws in other universes might produce different forms of life? (Anyway, I thought you were opposed to people imagining other universes.) Perhaps we are here through the deliberate planning of an eternal, unknown mind which created 100-plus thousand million galaxies and made ours special, and organized our little dot of a planet to receive the benefits of his nano-engineering. Or perhaps we just struck lucky. When we contemplate the potential realities of eternity, we are all infinitely out of our depth. But we keep looking for answers all the same, and doesn't that make you proud to be human?
Eternity
by David Turell , Sunday, November 24, 2013, 18:42 (4015 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: (Anyway, I thought you were opposed to people imagining other universes.) Perhaps we are here through the deliberate planning of an eternal, unknown mind which created 100-plus thousand million galaxies and made ours special, and organized our little dot of a planet to receive the benefits of his nano-engineering. Or perhaps we just struck lucky. When we contemplate the potential realities of eternity, we are all infinitely out of our depth. But we keep looking for answers all the same, and doesn't that make you proud to be human?-Yes I am proud to be human and not surprised we are here, considering all the evidence taht it was planned. Strassler's point is that he claims it is very unseful in understanding our universe and the way it is made up by imaginning others. That seems to open up insights otherwise not thought of.
Eternity
DAVID: Yes I am proud to be human and not surprised we are here, considering all the evidence taht it was planned. Strassler's point is that he claims it is very unseful in understanding our universe and the way it is made up by imaginning others. That seems to open up insights otherwise not thought of.-Yes indeed, the imagination is a great aid to opening up new insights. Some folk would even say that's how all the different gods came into being in the first place.
Eternity
by David Turell , Monday, November 25, 2013, 16:02 (4014 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Yes indeed, the imagination is a great aid to opening up new insights. Some folk would even say that's how all the different gods came into being in the first place.-Karen Armstrong would disagree. She thinks we are built to be religious from the beginning. And humans in the Western world followed a progression from many gods to one God, as thought matured, and from a fierce God, to a loving God to a mysterious God as one went from the OT to the NT to the Quran. Even the stone-age native Americans had one God.The East ignoring the Hindu crowd of gods, settled on a more mysterious set of structures for their approach to devinity. But everyone except atheists and agnostics join in.
Eternity
dhw: Yes indeed, the imagination is a great aid to opening up new insights. Some folk would even say that's how all the different gods came into being in the first place.-DAVID: Karen Armstrong would disagree. She thinks we are built to be religious from the beginning. And humans in the Western world followed a progression from many gods to one God, as thought matured, and from a fierce God, to a loving God to a mysterious God as one went from the OT to the NT to the Quran. Even the stone-age native Americans had one God.The East ignoring the Hindu crowd of gods, settled on a more mysterious set of structures for their approach to devinity. But everyone except atheists and agnostics join in.-I wonder what you mean by "thought matured". You adhere to the Western way of thought, with your emphasis on monotheism, and yet atheism and agnosticism are widespread in the Western world, and you have told us that 90% of scientists are that way inclined. Maturity, then? No doubt "thought" changes as conditions change, science solves more and more of Nature's apparent mysteries (ugh, ugh, fancy all those folk bowing down to the sun, eh?), and reason rips apart the vast fabric of hocus-pocus that envelops so many of our religions. But you are right that worship of some kind seems to permeate most societies. The question is whether all of them have latched on to some kind of universal truth, or the self-conscious human mind simply needs explanations of the inexplicable, as well as the hope that some greater power (even if it is terrifying) might help us to overcome the dangers and insecurities of life on Earth.
Eternity
by David Turell , Tuesday, November 26, 2013, 22:04 (4013 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw; I wonder what you mean by "thought matured". -This is Karen Johnson's interpretation. The oldest bible (OT) is read by the newer folks, and the Mohammed knew the contents of the NT. It is that study of the past which allowed the maturing of the interpretation of God. Makes perfect sense to me.- > dhw: But you are right that worship of some kind seems to permeate most societies. The question is whether all of them have latched on to some kind of universal truth, or the self-conscious human mind simply needs explanations of the inexplicable, as well as the hope that some greater power (even if it is terrifying) might help us to overcome the dangers and insecurities of life on Earth.-How much danger do you feel know? How insecure are you? That would apply to uncivilized ancient tribes. But even now many people need religion and its comforts. At some elemental level we seem to need religion.
Eternity
Dhw: ...But you are right that worship of some kind seems to permeate most societies. The only question is whether all of them have latched on to some kind of universal truth, or the self-conscious human mind simply needs explanations of the inexplicable, as well as the hope that some greater power (even if it is terrifying) might help us to overcome the dangers and insecurities of life on Earth.-DAVID: How much danger do you feel know? How insecure are you? That would apply to uncivilized ancient tribes. But even now many people need religion and its comforts. At some elemental level we seem to need religion.-A strange response. A vast area of our planet is being torn apart by disasters both natural and man-made, and in any case people in every part of the world know that at any moment their lives could be shattered by illness or accident. In that we are no different from your ancient, so-called "uncivilized" tribes. So yes indeed, many people do need some sort of god(s) ... as I said, either to explain the inexplicable, or to help them overcome the dangers and insecurities of life on Earth. Those two reasons have always been present, but that doesn't mean the worshippers are deluding themselves.
Eternity
by David Turell , Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 18:46 (4012 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: A strange response. A vast area of our planet is being torn apart by disasters both natural and man-made, and in any case people in every part of the world know that at any moment their lives could be shattered by illness or accident. In that we are no different from your ancient, so-called "uncivilized" tribes. So yes indeed, many people do need some sort of god(s) ... as I said, either to explain the inexplicable, or to help them overcome the dangers and insecurities of life on Earth. Those two reasons have always been present, but that doesn't mean the worshippers are deluding themselves.-Yours is a strange interpretation of my comment. Life is meant to be a challenge or how do you prove yourself? I think like my Susan, things are meant to happen for a reason. You had severe maleria and found Lisbeth. Great result, yes? And for most of civilized and uncivilized life folks have looked for and to a theistic level of reality. There is a deeper meaning here.