Free Will

[Immanuel Can]

Well, whatever it is, it’s not going to be a mathematical proof, like disproving the actual infinite causal regress was. But that’s not the only kind of evidence there is. There is, for example, inductive arguments, which are based on things like the evidence we have within the universe, and lead not to incontrovertible proofs, but rather to the kinds of arguments that rest on probability and preponderance of evidence. And most arguments are of that kind. So how about looking at the universe, and estimating what is the most probable cause of what you see?

So do you believe that a man regarded as God spoke the universe into existence?

What do you mean by “a man”? You mean a “man” in the sense that you are a “man”? Or do you mean the Divine Prototype from which the whole concept “man” is correctly derived? It makes all the difference in the universe.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you think about that? To me, it seems I cannot get beyond the instantaneous moment of awareness here now.

Experientially, I agree: we can’t get past our present moment, perhaps. But cognitively, logically, empirically, we can: we simply have to look at the present evidence, and make inductive judgments about what it most plausibly indicates.

And there’s nothing particularly weird about that. After all, detectives often view a crime scene and make estimations of what has happened, and how it was done, and arrive at some sound judgments about what causes, effects and so on were in play. Likewise, historians routinely look at artifacts, present arrangements, documents, narratives, and such, and inductively conclude that the most likely explanation is that the Napoleonic Wars or the crossing of the Rubicon actually happened.

All I’m saying is that we can use the present evidence in the universe to make the same sort of judgment: what’s the most reasonable explanation for the data before us in the present moment?

And we could begin by breaking the possible candidates down into two: either the universe “just happened,” or it was produced by a super-intelligent First Cause. The first candidate, in other words, is random chance, and the second is some sort of intentionality.

How does the evidence look to you?

So lets think about this now. It is obviously clear that there does appear to be an intelligence at work here. Indeed, there are right now manifesting ''thoughts'' being generated about the idea there could be a super-intelligence that is capable of intent. Maybe an intelligence that generates meaning, purpose and specific design plans. Yes, it does seem like that is the case.

Okay. What makes that so “obvious” or so “manifest”?

However, this evidence can only be known now, in space and time. So, that still leaves the question of how this intelligence was possible at all. Do you see the problem? isn't the HOW just more of the hard question of consciousness. And yes, it is obviously self-evident without doubt or error that there is some consciousness capable of understanding the concepts of intention, meaning, purpose, and design. But is this self-awareness actually present at it's own conception of itself, was the actual cause of the universe known to itself in the exact moment of conception, was the universe aware of the very beginning of it's own birth, was there conscious awareness at the very beginning of the universe that was aware the universe had indeed happened?
I think that is what you were implying IC, when you mentioned a 'first candidate' must have been present to have caused the birth of the universe?

The question of “how” the First Cause exists cannot be answered, of course…because if it requires us to suppose the First Cause had some cause, then it’s self-contradicting nonsense: how can a “first” cause have the necessity of any “prior” cause? But the problem is really in the question, not in the absence of the answer: the question itself turns out to be the nonsense, because it defeats itself suppositionally.

Your second-last question, I don’t pretend to understand. I can’t quite make out its meaning, or at least what issue it’s trying to probe. So I can’t say that I was “implying” it, as you suggest. What I can say is that we already know, for certain, that the universe had to have SOME First Cause, and we’re discussing whether or not, on the basis of evidence, we think we can suppose it to be an intelligence.

I hear you as saying you think it “obvious” that it was intelligence. If so, then you’re at the concept “God.” The next question, if I could put it this way, would be “What KIND of God,” or better still, “What is the nature of the God who created the universe?” And for that, we’d need another strategy again.

[Harbal]

Or do you mean the Divine Prototype

I've never heard that one before.

[Immanuel Can]

Or do you mean the Divine Prototype

I've never heard that one before.

Well, think about it this way: if God is the Creator, then “man” is not some kind of prototype of God, nor is the idea of “God” generated by man at all. It’s got to be the other way around. It cannot be otherwise, because “man” is a contingent, perishable, temporary being. How could “man” be the pattern of his own existence?

[Harbal]

Or do you mean the Divine Prototype

I've never heard that one before.

Well, think about it this way: if God is the Creator, then “man” is not some kind of prototype of God, nor is the idea of “God” generated by man at all. It’s got to be the other way around. It cannot be otherwise, because “man” is a contingent, perishable, temporary being. How could “man” be the pattern of his own existence?

It's no good asking me, you know I don't do religion.

[Immanuel Can]

I've never heard that one before.

Well, think about it this way: if God is the Creator, then “man” is not some kind of prototype of God, nor is the idea of “God” generated by man at all. It’s got to be the other way around. It cannot be otherwise, because “man” is a contingent, perishable, temporary being. How could “man” be the pattern of his own existence?

It's no good asking me, you know I don't do religion.

You don’t have to, in order to understand why the person speaking is making the point. If you simply don’t care to understand monotheists at all, then you can just ignore the whole issue, of course.

[attofishpi]

Well, whatever it is, it’s not going to be a mathematical proof, like disproving the actual infinite causal regress was. But that’s not the only kind of evidence there is. There is, for example, inductive arguments, which are based on things like the evidence we have within the universe, and lead not to incontrovertible proofs, but rather to the kinds of arguments that rest on probability and preponderance of evidence. And most arguments are of that kind. So how about looking at the universe, and estimating what is the most probable cause of what you see?

So do you believe that a man regarded as God spoke the universe into existence?

What do you mean by “a man”? You mean a “man” in the sense that you are a “man”?

Of course not, I don't consider myself God.

Or do you mean the Divine Prototype from which the whole concept “man” is correctly derived? It makes all the difference in the universe.

Yes, not sure why you find it so difficult to understand when I made it very clear that I am talking about God, who is in the form of MAN!!

Point being, that you believe that the cause of the universe was that this God spoke the universe into existence and that you think this is more reasonable than any other theory as to the universe's existence. Surely you must understand why most people, especially scientists, find this as an absurd theory for the existence of everything?

[Immanuel Can]

Point being, that you believe that the cause of the universe was that this God spoke the universe into existence and that you think this is more reasonable than any other theory as to the universe's existence. Surely you must understand why most people, especially scientists, find this as an absurd theory for the existence of everything?

You’re being absurdly reductional and crassly literal. But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning. I leave open to you whether or not you think an explanation by way of accident or an explanation by way of intention fits the data.

So what do you think?

[Harbal]

But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning.

You seem to be forgetting that I proved it mathematically possible to infinitely regress.

I leave open to you whether or not you think an explanation by way of accident or an explanation by way of intention fits the data.

It's sort of by intention. We each of us imagine our universe into existence, and what free will we have is not under our conscious control; it merely seems to be. This is irrefutably true, btw, so there you have it, in the days when this was written.

[attofishpi]

Point being, that you believe that the cause of the universe was that this God spoke the universe into existence and that you think this is more reasonable than any other theory as to the universe's existence. Surely you must understand why most people, especially scientists, find this as an absurd theory for the existence of everything?

You’re being absurdly reductional and crassly literal.

Not so much crass but let's face it, you believe that Genesis was the literal word of God and that "He" spoke the universe into existence, or do you not?

But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning.

Mathematics does not automatically translate to reality, it's a bit of a stretch to compare counting back in integers to prove anything about a requirement for the universe to have a beginning, a first cause.

If energy cannot be created or destroyed that would imply that energy is eternal, no?

I leave open to you whether or not you think an explanation by way of accident or an explanation by way of intention fits the data.
So what do you think?

You've probably read what I think as I've posted it many times.

[Immanuel Can]

But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning.

You seem to be forgetting that I proved it mathematically possible to infinitely regress.

You seem not to notice my wording, actually. It’s not possible to have an actual infinite regress of causes. Got it yet?

We each of us imagine our universe into existence,

Well, some of us seem to…

[Immanuel Can]

Point being, that you believe that the cause of the universe was that this God spoke the universe into existence and that you think this is more reasonable than any other theory as to the universe's existence. Surely you must understand why most people, especially scientists, find this as an absurd theory for the existence of everything?

You’re being absurdly reductional and crassly literal.

Not so much crass but let's face it, you believe that Genesis was the literal word of God and that "He" spoke the universe into existence, or do you not?

Of course. But God’s “speech” is not ours. To use an analogy from human speech is to get the order of the metaphor backwards.

But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning.

Mathematics does not automatically translate to reality,

Actually, it “transfers” quite well, in many cases; and in this one in particular, as well. It’s quite sufficient to show that an actual infinite regress of causes is an impossible idea…precisely because, as maths shows, it has no inception point…and without an inception, no causal chain can ever begin, because it’s composed of prerequisites that recede infinitely. Think about it, and you’ll see it.

I leave open to you whether or not you think an explanation by way of accident or an explanation by way of intention fits the data.
So what do you think?

You've probably read what I think as I've posted it many times.

I’ve missed it.

[Harbal]

But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning.

You seem to be forgetting that I proved it mathematically possible to infinitely regress.

You seem not to notice my wording, actually. It’s not possible to have an actual infinite regress of causes. Got it yet?

But your speciality is believing in things that aren't possible.

[attofishpi]

But so far, all we’re saying is that mathematically, we know that the universe had a beginning.

Mathematics does not automatically translate to reality,

Actually, it “transfers” quite well, in many cases; and in this one in particular, as well. It’s quite sufficient to show that an actual infinite regress of causes is an impossible idea…precisely because, as maths shows, it has no inception point…and without an inception, no causal chain can ever begin, because it’s composed of prerequisites that recede infinitely. Think about it, and you’ll see it.

Since knowing God to exist, or at least knowing the fact that there is an intelligence behind everything that we perceive of reality, I assure you that I have given it (and many other things) a great deal of thought.

You omitted the question I posed: "If energy cannot be created or destroyed that would imply that energy is eternal, no?"

So which of the following is more reasonable as a theory to the beginning of our universe?

NB. We both agree that infinite regression is out of the question..

Yours 1. An eternal intelligent being, God, spoke the universe into existence.

Mine 2. An intelligent being, God, formed from chaos, a place of no logic and no causality, eventually forming into our universe and forming a reality that is perceivable by life (particularly by us).

[Immanuel Can]

NB. We both agree that infinite regression is out of the question..

Yours 1. An eternal intelligent being, God, spoke the universe into existence.

Mine 2. An intelligent being, God, formed from chaos, a place of no logic and no causality, eventually forming into our universe and forming a reality that is perceivable by life (particularly by us).

You’ll have to point out the difference you think exists between those two views. It’s not apparent, unless you take “spoke” to mean something anthropomorphic…which it evidently doesn’t.