Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Welcome to Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible spam accounts.

Donnadogsoth

Answering an Atheist Chestnut

Atheist:  Where did the Universe come from?

Believer:  From the Creator.

A:  Where did the Creator come from?

B:  The Creator is timeless and has always existed.

A:  Why couldn't the Universe be timeless and always existed?

B:  Because the Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The universe has timeless attributes that do not change, so your claim of "he Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition." could be seen as false

The current scientific theory is the universe was created in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. 

The idea that the universe was created by a timeless "creator" is interesting. As the universe does seem to have timeless principles that serve as a foundation. Like math which is known to be the language of the universe.

With that being said, Im guessing one could hypothesize that the universe foundation is timeless. Now obviously I am not a scientist so I have no idea where to even start to unravel the universe. It is a fascinating topic, one that I feel I should spend more time on. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Boss said:

Like math which is known to be the language of the universe.

 

Im not sure thats true. Or that it even means anything. What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, neeeel said:

Im not sure thats true. Or that it even means anything. What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"?

 

The language of the universe is written in photons, as they are the tiniest amount of information transmitted from any place to another. I think constructions like Boss's post are poetic, but I would instead say Math being the language of the universe lends too much substance to an abstraction. One could say that the rules of math are solid and physical phenomena can be modeled with constructs that follow those rules, and that has led us to wonderful confirmed predictions in the past.

In my experience, atheists don't ask the question in the original post. But since I don't hang with atheists that are collectivists, I'm not exactly dealing with the majority. The question I ear asked is "What evidence led you to believe what you believe?" and "What would convince you otherwise?"

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"?

Math describes relationships and continuous changes. It removes mental baggage we add to our understanding. That's why it is so useful.

If
1.jpg

is the universe,

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6

Is the mathematicl description of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Boss said:

The universe has timeless attributes that do not change, so your claim of "he Universe changes and mutable things cannot be timeless, by definition." could be seen as false

The current scientific theory is the universe was created in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago. 

The idea that the universe was created by a timeless "creator" is interesting. As the universe does seem to have timeless principles that serve as a foundation. Like math which is known to be the language of the universe.

With that being said, Im guessing one could hypothesize that the universe foundation is timeless. Now obviously I am not a scientist so I have no idea where to even start to unravel the universe. It is a fascinating topic, one that I feel I should spend more time on. 

The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist?  How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist?  How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind.

These abstractions are only invented and processed by conscious minds via chemical and electrical processes. When the brains processing abstractions die, those abstractions cease to matter (pun intended). Color of a certain wavelength, and fruit of a particular genotype, exist, but applying a general description and label to such things is not timeless, it's ephemeral.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shirgall said:

These abstractions are only invented and processed by conscious minds via chemical and electrical processes. When the brains processing abstractions die, those abstractions cease to matter (pun intended). Color of a certain wavelength, and fruit of a particular genotype, exist, but applying a general description and label to such things is not timeless, it's ephemeral.

Do you see any examples that (as per Boss) "The universe has timeless attributes that do not change."?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Do you see any examples that (as per Boss) "The universe has timeless attributes that do not change."?

A photon is the smallest particle with a lifespan greater than a nanosecond that can impart information.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, shirgall said:

A photon is the smallest particle with a lifespan greater than a nanosecond that can impart information.

Are you saying there are constants in the Universe, like the speed of light in a vacuum, or the cosmological constant, or the rules of chemistry?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, neeeel said:

Im not sure thats true. Or that it even means anything. What does it mean to be the "language of the universe"?

 

Math is one of the most fundamental types of logic possible. Thus one of the best ways to express the universe. I am sure you know famous equations like E=mc^2 and things like PI which is a mathematical constant. These things will remain true whether humans know them or not. Math is universal, meaning it will remain true to aliens, humans, cats. When an alien, cat or human jumps the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation F = Gm1m2/r2 is true.
 

10 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

The colour yellow and the idea of a banana can be considered timeless, but where do they exist?  How does "yellow" or "idea of banana" exist outside of a mind?--and given that they can't exist timelessly within temporal minds, they must exist in a timeless mind.

Sure, if you show someone who never seen the color yellow before a banana and asks them what color it is, they wouldn't know. However, the wavelength of the color yellow will still exist. Like just because someone is color blind it doesn't mean yellow doesn't exist. The yellow wavelength is there and will continue to exist whether the human mind exists or not. 


This reminds me of the thought experiment, If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Well, yes because there will be sound waves. You could track them with a recording device or not, a human could have heard it or not. The sound waves exist. If all humans go deaf or color blind tomorrow, sound waves and wavelength will still exist

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boss said:

Math is one of the most fundamental types of logic possible. Thus one of the best ways to express the universe. I am sure you know famous equations like E=mc^2 and things like PI which is a mathematical constant. These things will remain true whether humans know them or not. Math is universal, meaning it will remain true to aliens, humans, cats. When an alien, cat or human jumps the Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation F = Gm1m2/r2 is true.
 

Sure, if you show someone who never seen the color yellow before a banana and asks them what color it is, they wouldn't know. However, the wavelength of the color yellow will still exist. Like just because someone is color blind it doesn't mean yellow doesn't exist. The yellow wavelength is there and will continue to exist whether the human mind exists or not. 


This reminds me of the thought experiment, If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Well, yes because there will be sound waves. You could track them with a recording device or not, a human could have heard it or not. The sound waves exist. If all humans go deaf or color blind tomorrow, sound waves and wavelength will still exist

Do you suppose sounds waves are timeless?  I submit they are not, as they are ever-changing, just like the rest of the Universe.  Would you agree that universal law and mathematics are timeless?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Do you suppose sounds waves are timeless?  I submit they are not, as they are ever-changing, just like the rest of the Universe.  Or can you cite an example of unchanging parts of the Universe?

The amount of energy in the universe.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Do you suppose sounds waves are timeless?  I submit they are not, as they are ever-changing, just like the rest of the Universe.  Or can you cite an example of unchanging parts of the Universe?

the equation to determine sound waves should not be changing. So 1 billion years ago and 1 billion years in the future the sound waves equation will still hold true in determining sound, thus, you could say the way to determine sound waves is timeless.

However, I am not 100% certain on the current equation to determine sound waves. I understand there is a lot of factors like moisture in the air, surrounding etc, however, a true equation will remain true regardless of time. 


Math is not really changing. Humans understanding of math might be. However, 2+2=4 being true didn't change 1 billion years ago and won't change 1 billion years in the future. Thus, math is timeless. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

Are you saying there are constants in the Universe, like the speed of light in a vacuum, or the cosmological constant, or the rules of chemistry?

My point was that concepts exist only when brains exist to think about them.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, shirgall said:

My point was that concepts exist only when brains exist to think about them.

 

Neither brains nor the concepts they think about are timeless, then?  If not them, what?  As I said, universal law?

But in that case, in which timeless book are these universal laws--or Law--written?  In other words we need a mind to retain this Law, or else why would it work when we're not thinking about it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Donnadogsoth said:

 

Neither brains nor the concepts they think about are timeless, then?  If not them, what?  As I said, universal law?

But in that case, in which timeless book are these universal laws--or Law--written?  In other words we need a mind to retain this Law, or else why would it work when we're not thinking about it?

Word salad is not nutritious.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to sum up, the contenders for timelessness amount to various aspects of Natural Law. This Natural Law is timeless, unlike the Universe, which changes continuously. But, how can a law exist outside of a mind?

The atheist will reply that the word “law” is a metaphor. Natural law just describes how the Universe is, it doesn't imply a consciousness the law is in. Here we find a brute fact: “Natural law just is”. Since this violates the principle of sufficient reason, we can ignore it, and proceed to the only rational conclusion, namely a Creator who contains the timeless Law.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2017 at 9:56 AM, Donnadogsoth said:

Since this violates the principle of sufficient reason, we can ignore it, and proceed to the only rational conclusion, namely a Creator who contains the timeless Law.

How is that the only rational conclusion?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

How is that the only rational conclusion?

Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power.  Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well.  At this point we are talking about the Creator.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Donnadogsoth said:

Since no power can be without mind

How did you come to this conclusion

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gavitor said:

How did you come to this conclusion

 

Mindlessless is inconceivable.  What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness?  That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument.  Ergo, no substance can lack mind.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Donnadogsoth said:

Mindlessless is inconceivable.  What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness?  That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument.  Ergo, no substance can lack mind.

What do rocks think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gavitor said:

What do rocks think?

Probably something relatively simple, like "Hardness!  Grrr!"  They wouldn't be self-aware, but might experience sensations when broken or melted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2017 at 9:42 AM, ofd said:

Math describes relationships and continuous changes. It removes mental baggage we add to our understanding. That's why it is so useful.
...

Only incidentally and contingently.

Math fundamentally is a system of symbols, formal descriptions of relations between those symbols,  and rules for manipulating those symbols to other forms.  If we trained a computer, monkey or zombie to perform these symbolic transformations we would be more than happy to call that math.  It's not like other sorts of descriptive language where the Chinese Room Argument is convincing. http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

Math only describes relations and continuous changes if the essence of what you attempt to describe meaningfully matches to the formal descriptions of the symbols.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 6:20 AM, Boss said:

The universe has timeless attributes that do not change, ...

...

Even if true there is a problem to answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are. There is really no reason as far as we can tell that the fundamental physical constants of the universe are they way they are.  There are many theories that answer that, but none really proven.

On 7/21/2017 at 9:21 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power.  Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well.  At this point we are talking about the Creator.

Define power.  I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit.  The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic.  Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem.  The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while.

 

On 7/21/2017 at 9:52 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Mindlessless is inconceivable.  What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness?  That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument.  Ergo, no substance can lack mind.

It's precisely like it was before you were born.  And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, WorBlux said:
  On 7/21/2017 at 9:21 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Natural law is merely the description of the action of a power.  Since no power can be without mind, the timeless power acting to engage natural law must be mental as well.  At this point we are talking about the Creator.

Define power.  I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit.  The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic.  Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem.  The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while.

A mutable being cannot be timeless, and so not the Origin.

  On 7/21/2017 at 9:52 PM, Donnadogsoth said:

Mindlessless is inconceivable.  What is it like to be dead and lacking all consciousness?  That which is inconceivable is inadmissible to argument.  Ergo, no substance can lack mind.

It's precisely like it was before you were born.  And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference?

Do you remember every second of your life to date?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2017 at 6:20 PM, WorBlux said:

Even if true there is a problem to answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are. There is really no reason as far as we can tell that the fundamental physical constants of the universe are they way they are.  There are many theories that answer that, but none really proven.

I am not sure what you mean when you say "answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are"

If something is proven true then being true is the only explanation needed. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If we trained a computer, monkey or zombie to perform these symbolic transformations we would be more than happy to call that math.

That's essentially the Hilbert program which was put to an end by Gödel. Of course, using computers is very useful for proofs and what not, but it seems the human brain, so far, has abilities that exceeds those of Turing machines.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now