A god who existed forever

[TheJackel]

I would like to ask that since this is the "Happy Atheist" forum, that we refrain from condescending personal attacks. I'm sure there are a lot of people who have questions about this topic and haven't studied quantum physics. Jack's Disciple asked perfectly legit questions in a sincere form and deserves respectful answers. You have knowledge that you can impart, but which is difficult to grasp for many people, not just Jack.

Thank you in advance for helping stick to the spirit of the forum.
 

[TheJackel]

I see.  So basically all you're saying is that something can only exist if it has a location.

Well, yes it would need a place to exist, and it would also need to be made of something, or have substance. This means it can't exist without substance, or a place to exist. Thus, you must have material physicality, dimension, and spatial space in order to exist. Without these, you can not have the capacity to exist at all.. Thus, you can not be made of nothing within a place of non-existence to which is also made of nothing..

You have chosen a very long-winded and bizarre way of saying that.  Apparently "negative existence" for you is simply "non-existence".

No, my original explanation was hardly long winded or bizarre because it simply read as follows:

Existence exists because non-existence can not be a person, place, thing, object or substance of existence.. Hence, non-existence simply means that even itself does not exist, and can not exist. If non-existence existed as a person, place, thing, object, or substance it would negate it's own definition and fall under the definition of existence..

But non-existence is a meaningful concept, and what it has to do with "-1 dimensional space" I haven't the foggiest.

- 1 dimensional object, place, substance, or thing is not possible to exist. Non-existence is only a descriptive word to describe what doesn't exist within existence. Itself can not be a literal existing form of actual existence just as -1 dimensional spatial space can not be a literal form of existence.. These are simply examples to why there has always been existence, energy, and spatial space considering the opposites are not possible to exist.

Something either exists or it doesn't.

That is correct.. Or the idea of something either exist beyond that idea or it doesn't.. Hence, GOD or some green eyed Pixie fairy clan can be said to exist as ideas, but not actually exist beyond the idea, or imaginative concept.

Something is either extended in an n-dimensional space* or it isn't (n≥0).  There seems no  reason a priori why we should reject the notion of an object that exists and is not extended in space.

There can be no object, person, place, or thing in a negative spatial space simply because -1D would have a negative capacity.. Hence, no containment possible even for it's own existence.. Thus, the point of that is to show that all things must take up volume of spatial space and can not exist without it. The human body is 90+% empty space, 75% water molecules, and 100% energy for example.

Indeed, there are plenty of abstract objects that many philosophers throughout history have considered to fit into that category.  All you have done is state that "you need a place to exist".  That is far from a self-evident truth, and you will need to make some kind of argument to support it.

No, I stated that you need a place to exist in, and be in a place that has substance. So you can't be made of nothing, or exist in a place of negative spatial dimension to which would also be made of nothing.. It's simply impossible.

*It is unclear whether "space" for you refers to physical space or just space in general - you will need to clarify this before you make an argument.  In fact generally you will need to define concepts more clearly than you have thus far.

All space is physical, and is all entirely comprised of energy.

[TheJackel]

Maybe sports parlance might help.

In football, let's say you start at the 20 yard line.  If the running back runs forward 5 yards, it is +5 yards.  He ends up on the 25 yard line  Let's say he is tackled behind the 20 yard line at a loss of 10 yards, that will be -10 yards.  That is how negative numbers work.  You have a starting point where you can move forward or backwards.

Within our physical existence, ie. space, time, matter, physics, chemistry, and so on, the theoretical starting point is ZERO.  So there is no going backwards, no negative numbers.  In football, if it were allowed, the running back is starting at the goal post and can't ran backwards.  He has nowhere to go.

To complicate all of this  ..

So we can clearly state that a God can not create that to which he himself would require to exist, and is thus not possible to be the answer to existence.. So when theists try and state that their GOD exists outside of time, space, and material physicality they are essentially unknowingly stating their GOD doesn't exist while trying to claim it does.. Thus said deity would have to equally be slave to the need of being made of something, and have a place to exist in just so itself can exist like the rest of us. So it's logical to state that there is no such thing as a GOD or Creator to existence.. This then without possible argument show's that no mind, or being can every be the source origin to existence, and that all minds are mere products of the substance of existence.

In fact I can break down everything from evolution to morality, thoughts, feelings, choices, decisions ectra in 3 simple attributes of energy.

1) positive
2) negative
3) Neutral

Everything swings on the pendulum of these 3 simple laws of energy. There can ever only be a positive, negative, or neutral action, reaction, response, motion, process, result, osculation, or inertia to anything that exists.. And the severity or extent of any of the above depends greatly on chaos theory, cause and effect, or exerted pressure that may cause the pendulum to swing one way or the other..

[TheJackel]

Existence: The Eternal Universal Set

Here I will use the "I" argument as the example to the scientific explanation. The posts following the OP will go deep into the heart of things, so I hope you have some time on your hands :pop: [/b]

[youtube:30pdrwjw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88tK5c0wgH4[/youtube:30pdrwjw]


Conclusion:

Existence is A phenomenal reality of physical self-osculating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass possible.. Everything must following the energy scale to where all things begin and end at zero!.. An ever progressive and regressive flow of energy..

Thus, energy = the substance of information, mass, matter, existence, and itself without contradiction.. A true universal set of all sets!.. This is compliant to all aspects of existence, life, time, experience, complexity, or conscious observation of reality.. All minds are subset products of existence and are all material physical products and processes!

[Tank]

So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  

By this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Universe-Roger- ... 892&sr=8-2 it is an absolute eye opener!

[Jack's Disciple]

Well, yes it would need a place to exist, and it would also need to be made of something, or have substance. This means it can't exist without substance, or a place to exist.

You are simply begging the question.  You seem to think that the only alternative to existence in an n-dimensional space is existence in "-1-dimensional space".  You have defined existence in such a way as to implicitly reject any notion of aspacial existence.  Again, you need to provide an argument why aspacial existence is an incoherent notion.  Simply stating that it is "impossible" without a logical argument is just an argument from lack of imagination.

[Tank]

So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  

Sorry if I appear to be teaching you to suck eggs but this post isn't aimed specifically at yourself but also the wider audience of the forum.

[TheJackel]

You are simply begging the question.  You seem to think that the only alternative to existence in an n-dimensional space is existence in "-1-dimensional space".

Eh?. I am not begging the question or even stating that -1 dimension would be an alternative.. -1D is not an alternative because it's not possible to exist. I am not sure where you got the notion that I would suggest it's an alternative.

You have defined existence in such a way as to implicitly reject any notion of aspacial existence.  Again, you need to provide an argument why aspacial existence is an incoherent notion.  Simply stating that it is "impossible" without a logical argument is just an argument from lack of imagination.

So your argument here is that non-existence, non-material, non-physicality can magically exist as a person, place, or thing of existence? That makes absolutely no logical sense sir. Why it's incoherent notion:

non-material:

If something is non-material is it then thus made of nothing? How can something exist have have no substance, or material.. To state something is non-material is stating it's made of nothing. So if you are going to attempt to argue nothing can be something, you will need to take the time to define what these words mean. So if you are not made of anything, you essentially don't exist

Non-Physicality:

To be a Phenomenon or have process, function, ability, or be made of material you will require physicality. To state something has no physicality is also stating it has no phenomenon, function, ability, process, or being made of anything. And thus again you are referring to nothing as a something to which is impossible.

Temporal, or time:

To state something exists out side of time is suggesting something doesn't exist. When dealing with a consciousness for example, all minds must be temporally bound to time in order to have process, ability, function, thought, progression, experience, observation, mobility, motion, inertia, or be able to do something.. Theists stating a being is outside of time don't realize you can't design, create, think, or make choices or decisions without time, or being bound to it.. Consciousness is an active phenomenon, or material physical process and requires inertia to be in process.

Dimensional:

Without spatial space or dimensional attributes you have no means of existing. To have no place to exist, or to have no dimensional attributes as an object of observation, you simply wouldn't exist. Here again we go right back into the definition of nothing and theists trying to claim nothing can magically be a something.. It's entirely incoherent to suggest something exists outside of dimensional spatial space. This would literally mean such suggested fallacious object would have no attributes to which would be observable. Even your Idea of said deity had dimensional attributes as a pattern of energy, or as an image or thought.

[TheJackel]

Since the point of the 'Big Bang' the process of the 'heat death' of the universe started. As far as I understand it, the heat death is the process by which all energy in the universe will eventually degrade to the point where it can do no useful work. Once the initial expansion of the Universe occurred all the mass was to be found in Hydrogen (75%), Helium (two fused Hydrogen atoms, (25%) ) and Lithium (three fused Hydrogen atoms (<0.01%)). And a lot of energy in the form of mediation particles such as photons.

Actually this is only half true.. This will not result in the loss of existence, spatial dimension, or the potentiality of other Big Bangs.. The quantum foam will never wind down, and they are only referring to the decay of matter back into base energy.. Particle and anti-particle collisions will never wind down, and the flow of energy will never cease to flow, osculate, or cease to create that bi-product of matter from anti-particle and particle collisions.

Nothing else existed until gravity started to form the first stars.

Yes gravity played a Key role in creating the stars, but nothing did not exist prior to star formation or the Big Bang.. In fact much of what made the stars didn't just come from the Big Bang as it did from all the feverish activity generated by the Quantum foam of particle and anti-particle collisions. Even if all the matter in the Universe came from a single point there still would be energy, empty space, dimensional expanse, and the quantum foam beyond that point of expansion.

Within these stars nuclear fusion started which holds the star open against the force of gravity. The first fusion fuel is Hydrogen which fusses into Helium releasing energy as it does so, once the Hydrogen is used up the star cools and collapses a little so the pressure and core heat grows which allows Helium to fuse into Lithium and so on down the periodic scale. At some point and I can't remember where this cascade becomes unstable and the ability of gravity to hold the star together ceases and the star explodes. What happens to the remains depends on how big the star was to start with.

Fusion is pretty much what made all the heavier elements.

[TheJackel]

So everything we see today has indeed existed forever then, in one form or another?  This I find to be an extremely interesting topic seeing as I plan to become an astrophysicist.  I would really love for anyone who has more knowledge of this subject to post what they know so my mind can have a feast  

I will later tonight after work post a thread with a ton of information on this subject.. I have a lot of videos to share, and plenty of links and other information that will be a good resource for other people interested in the subject.

[Tank]

Since the point of the 'Big Bang' the process of the 'heat death' of the universe started. As far as I understand it, the heat death is the process by which all energy in the universe will eventually degrade to the point where it can do no useful work. Once the initial expansion of the Universe occurred all the mass was to be found in Hydrogen (75%), Helium (two fused Hydrogen atoms, (25%) ) and Lithium (three fused Hydrogen atoms (<0.01%)). And a lot of energy in the form of mediation particles such as photons.

Actually this is only half true.. This will not result in the loss of existence, spatial dimension, or the potentiality of other Big Bangs.. The quantum foam will never wind down, and they are only referring to the decay of matter back into base energy.. Particle and anti-particle collisions will never wind down, and the flow of energy will never cease to flow, osculate, or cease to create that bi-product of matter from anti-particle and particle collisions.

Thanks for the additional points, most interesting.

Nothing else existed until gravity started to form the first stars.

This is a false statement, and a rather fallacious one at that. Yes gravity played a Key role in creating the stars, but nothing did not exist prior to star formation or the Big Bang.. In fact much of what made the stars didn't just come from the Big Bang as it did from all the feaverish activity generated by the Quantum foam of particle and anti-particle collisions. Even if all the matter in the Universe came from a single point there still would be energy, empty space, dimensional expanse beyond that point of expansion.

I never said that nothing existed before the Big Bang. My statement related to what you would find in the universe if you travelled back to a point after the Big Bang and period of expansion but before the first stars were formed. One would be travelling around in a nebulous cloud of Hydrogen, Helium and a little bit of Lithium with no overt structure. And it is the action of gravity that started the transformation of this primordial matter into what we witness today. I think you were reading my post far too deeply  

[Tank]

osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

[The Black Jester]

This is why life is observer matter capable of processing observable information that is all material!

Existence, energy, and information are essentially the same coin!

Existence is A phenomenal reality of physical self-osculating, self-organizing energy that makes you, me, the stars, matter, mass possible.

I'm curious about a couple of points along the way in your argument. Firstly I would like to say that I entirely agree with you regarding the natural, physical, material basis of the mind, but you seem to imply that you have neatly and definitively disposed of the dualists and all their arguments.  A laudible feat, if true, since materialist and physicalist philosophers have been arguing to do that very thing for a number of years now, with no very great concensus as to their success (although, obviously, Dennett and Chuchland feel they gone a long way towards this).  Now, you may say that is merely evidence of the ineptitude of philosophers and those who pretend to understand them.  Still...I would very much like to know precisely how you have done this.  It just doesn't quite seem to follow exactly from the argument as you present it.  You seem to be assuming a few things.  Can you expand on your arguments?

The crucial link in your argument appears to me to be a linkage between "information" (as a basic component of existence) and your use of the term "phenomenal."  Are you essentially equating these two terms?  How do you answer the qualia question?  How is information, which in the brain is represented by electrochemical interactions, translated into what you would presumably claim to the "information" of phenomenal qualities?  How do you answer the subjectivity problem?  

I would also like to point out that I understand, and concede, the points about non-dimensionality, non-materiality, etc. - so that an attempt to claim that the mind is "non-material" is fatally flawed.  I'm just curious how, specifically, you answer the "what it is like" problem.

[Jack's Disciple]

So your argument here is that non-existence, non-material, non-physicality can magically exist as a person, place, or thing of existence? That makes absolutely no logical sense sir. Why it's incoherent notion:

"Non-existence can magically exist as a thing of existence"?  I don't mean to be rude, but I have great trouble taking someone seriously when they use such obviously meaningless language.

If something is non-material is it then thus made of nothing? How can something exist have have no substance, or material.. To state something is non-material is stating it's made of nothing. So if you are going to attempt to argue nothing can be something, you will need to take the time to define what these words mean. So if you are not made of anything, you essentially don't exist

You are begging the question!  You equivocate "having no material" with "being nothing".  If your argument has any non-tautologous content, please put your argument in syllogistic form - premises and the conclusion that "non-material entities cannot exist".

To be a Phenomenon or have process, function, ability, or be made of material you will require physicality. To state something has no physicality is also stating it has no phenomenon, function, ability, process, or being made of anything. And thus again you are referring to nothing as a something to which is impossible.

You are begging the question!  Premises please with the conclusion "non-physical entities cannot exist".

To state something exists out side of time is suggesting something doesn't exist. When dealing with a consciousness for example, all minds must be temporally bound to time in order to have process, ability, function, thought, progression, experience, observation, mobility, motion, inertia, or be able to do something.. Theists stating a being is outside of time don't realize you can't design, create, think, or make choices or decisions without time, or being bound to it.. Consciousness is an active phenomenon, or material physical process and requires inertia to be in process.

You are...guess what...begging the question!  Simply stating "such and such must..." is not an argument!  Again, premises, concluding that "atemporal entities cannot exist".

Without spatial space or dimensional attributes you have no means of existing. To have no place to exist, or to have no dimensional attributes as an object of observation, you simply wouldn't exist. Here again we go right back into the definition of nothing and theists trying to claim nothing can magically be a something.. It's entirely incoherent to suggest something exists outside of dimensional spatial space. This would literally mean such suggested fallacious object would have no attributes to which would be observable. Even your Idea of said deity had dimensional attributes as a pattern of energy, or as an image or thought.

Surprisingly: more question-begging assertions.  Premises that logically lead to the conclusion "aspatial entities cannot exist" if you please.

[Jack's Disciple]

osculate http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/osculate

I've not come across this term before. Could you pad out the definition a little in the context of your posts. Thanks.

I assumed it was a misspelling of "oscillate".