Does god exist?

reptiles

Active member
#1
The cosmological argument mainly say's that which acts has potent ency until it is actualized by another entity mainly a good example a cup of coffee has potential to go from potentially hot to actually hot it in itself was not always hot without first being in some potency.

We can use this for everything that exists not just back into the infinite past or infinite potent future but here and know and we have everything going from potency to actuality till we start going down in a vertical chain till we get logically to a first point or else you are getting infinite amounts of causes from something inside potent-ency and actuality until eventually you get infinite regress know while mathematical infinities are possible actual infinities are impossible in thought infinity as a concept means it's so big it has no identity so infinite regress is out.

To stop this vicious cycle we must have a being a unmoved actualizer who is not contingent within the set of potency and actuality who is already actualized by nothing he just is a monad that which exists but it not contained or made by anything.

The main issue here this argument is assuming we live in a linear eternal universe or finite universe doesn't really matter it is under the assumption the past no longer exists it has been it is passed the future is mere potential rather than actual even if it is determined it is still in a state of potentiality. This is the block a model of time for reference.

The problem arises here if block b model of time is true this would mean the past present and even the future already exist and that the illusion of know is no longer true and time is simultaneous it is happening know back into the infinite past and into the infinite comptaibalist future the future then is no longer potent-ency and potentiality but rather the future is moving onto the present the present is moving onto the past and the past is moving onto the future.

At this stage their would be no potency or actuality as again the future exists simultaneously with the present so all potent-ency goes out the window everything is know an actual the reason we have potentency is cause of the conception of the future being purely potential rather than purely existing know.

So if this theory exists it's a death blow to any religion so it's really a coin toss weather god exists or not really depends on weather or not reality makes sense if we can truly trust reality or if it is a unintelligible mess again only time and evidence will tell.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#2
If consciousness isn't linked to true indeterminism it would open up for you reincarnating into the past or even living the same life again. This falls apart given infinite time since you would just move back and forth in time (such as 10↑↑↑↑10 years) and se your body suddenly change to something else.

All experiments done so far supports the notion of quantum indeterminism being real, the overwhelming majority of physicists reject the notion of superdeterminism and this is for good reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#3
Whether or not god exist will depend on your definition of god, the following 4 types have not yet been ruled out

0. god in control over quantum inteterminism.
1. god at the big bang.
2. god that exist iside black holes or inside black holes.
3. AI god (superintelligence).
4. genetically engineered god.

A god of type0 would be very constrained by special relativity, you are not allowed to cokmunicate faster than 299792458m/s, thus even if a single consciousness where in control over most quantum indeterminism it wouldn't allow for anywhere close to effective control.

Gods of type 1 and 2 are cannot currently be rules out since our well-tested theories of physics break down at this point and there is no generally accepted theory of quantum gravity.

A god of type1 would no longer have any power once big bang has happened.

A god of type2 would be imprisoned by the black hole and thus made practically powerless by general relativity.
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#4
Your argument for god does not hold up
1. it depend on the copenhagen interpretention of quantum mechanics being correct.
2. you can indeed have an infinite chain back of actualizers.
 
#5
If consciousness isn't linked to true indeterminism it would open up for you reincarnating into the past or even living the same life again. This falls apart given infinite time since you would just move back and forth in time (such as 10↑↑↑↑10 years) and se your body suddenly change to something else.

All experiments done so far supports the notion of quantum indeterminism being real, the overwhelming majority of physicists reject the notion of superdeterminism and this is for good reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem


If consciousness isn't linked to true indeterminism it would open up for you reincarnating into the past or even living the same life again. This falls apart given infinite time since you would just move back and forth in time (such as 10↑↑↑↑10 years) and se your body suddenly change to something else.


Boltsman brain ? then is what your going for ? as for block b i have managed to reconcile god of the b theory.



1 Let points abc in time be all equally real.
2 if points abc is equally real in a tenseless state until prior x happens to make the x in a tensed state let this time be called a.
3 then point a becomes in a tensed state however point bc in time seems to be in a tenseless state but are equally real and are ever changing.
4 Things going from potential to actual seem to still stay the same as their is no pure determinism.
C1 aristotlian metaphyics seem to work just fine tbh.

Also i don't know much about bells therome seems really complex
 
#6
Whether or not god exist will depend on your definition of god, the following 4 types have not yet been ruled out

0. god in control over quantum inteterminism.
1. god at the big bang.
2. god that exist iside black holes or inside black holes.
3. AI god (superintelligence).
4. genetically engineered god.

A god of type0 would be very constrained by special relativity, you are not allowed to cokmunicate faster than 299792458m/s, thus even if a single consciousness where in control over most quantum indeterminism it wouldn't allow for anywhere close to effective control.

Gods of type 1 and 2 are cannot currently be rules out since our well-tested theories of physics break down at this point and there is no generally accepted theory of quantum gravity.

A god of type1 would no longer have any power once big bang has happened.

A god of type2 would be imprisoned by the black hole and thus made practically powerless by general relativity.

This main argument is reliant more on potentials to actuals than actual cosmological proof the kalam is more interested in that tbh this argument is more conserned with the conceptions of things going from a state of first potential to actual so i guess the 1st 1 the other 3 doesn't really fit my mold of god atleast what i am talking about in this context
 
#7
Your argument for god does not hold up
1. it depend on the copenhagen interpretention of quantum mechanics being correct.
2. you can indeed have an infinite chain back of actualizers.

1 this argument can still techinqely work with any field except bohmian mechanics it requires complete determinism this argument is mainly things going from a potency to actuality.

As for the 2nd claim no a series of actualizers is not possible as infinity itself is incoherent
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#8
If consciousness isn't linked to true indeterminism it would open up for you reincarnating into the past or even living the same life again. This falls apart given infinite time since you would just move back and forth in time (such as 10↑↑↑↑10 years) and se your body suddenly change to something else.


Boltsman brain ? then is what your going for ? as for block b i have managed to reconcile god of the b theory.

1 Let points abc in time be all equally real.
2 if points abc is equally real in a tenseless state until prior x happens to make the x in a tensed state let this time be called a.
3 then point a becomes in a tensed state however point bc in time seems to be in a tenseless state but are equally real and are ever changing.
4 Things going from potential to actual seem to still stay the same as their is no pure determinism.
C1 aristotlian metaphyics seem to work just fine tbh.

Also i don't know much about bells therome seems really complex
Bohmian mechanics may not save you from boltzmann brains and that is not the only reason to believe our universe is cyclic.

https://www.vintologi.com/threads/darwinian-vintologi.1/page-3#post-74

Given a cyclic universe it follows that B theory of time must be false or there wouldn't be any reason for you not to suddently reincarnate grahams number of years in the future or in the past.

This issue is resolved by having consciousness tied to the collapse of the wavefunction and this is the present.

Sorry for late reply, it will take some time for me to reply to all this.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#9
1 this argument can still techinqely work with any field except bohmian mechanics it requires complete determinism this argument is mainly things going from a potency to actuality.
That's not correct, another solution is to interpret the quantum field(s) as always being a part of the real world, all you need to add is an indeterministic collapse of the wavefunction.

No external observer is needed to collapse the wavefunction according to the penrose interpretation.
As for the 2nd claim no a series of actualizers is not possible as infinity itself is incoherent
No it isn't, infinity is used in maths all the time and it works.

Take 1+1/2+1/4+1/8... you coninue that an infinite amount of terms and you get to 2, it works just fine.
 
#10
Bohmian mechanics may not save you from boltzmann brains and that is not the only reason to believe our universe is cyclic.

https://www.vintologi.com/threads/darwinian-vintologi.1/page-3#post-74

Given a cyclic universe it follows that B theory of time must be false or there wouldn't be any reason for you not to suddently reincarnate grahams number of years in the future or in the past.

This issue is resolved by having consciousness tied to the collapse of the wavefunction and this is the present.

Sorry for late reply, it will take some time for me to reply to all this.

Bohmian mechanics may not save you from boltzmann brains and that is not the only reason to believe our universe is cyclic.

Dude so your going with the cyclical universe view i mean it could be eternal but even eternal points have a beggining that is just a fact it goes back eternally not infinitly they are very crucial differences.

1 the universe goes back x time eternally.
2 Eternal just means the combination of a begging point to no end point.
3 the universe is not actually infinite.
4 God still created the universe before hand.
5 the teleogy of this argument isn't negated as even if the cosmological constants are from before hand god would still be the first thing that created all thing at x=eternity.
C1 we still have a finely tuned universe even if the laws are based on previous big bangs.


''Given a cyclic universe it follows that B theory of time must be false or there wouldn't be any reason for you not to suddently reincarnate grahams number of years in the future or in the past.

This issue is resolved by having consciousness tied to the collapse of the wavefunction and this is the present.''

I follow the monistic idealist approach so i somewhat agree the main idea is however we are in gods mind however this is the main disntinction in my main view the universe isn't infinite or eternal it is very much so finite so we woudn't have a boltzman brian issue
 
#11
That's not correct, another solution is to interpret the quantum field(s) as always being a part of the real world, all you need to add is an indeterministic collapse of the wavefunction.

No external observer is needed to collapse the wavefunction according to the penrose interpretation.

No it isn't, infinity is used in maths all the time and it works.

Take 1+1/2+1/4+1/8... you coninue that an infinite amount of terms and you get to 2, it works just fine.

''world, all you need to add is an indeterministic collapse of the wavefunction.

No external observer is needed to collapse the wavefunction according to the penrose interpretation.''

Well i mean i'm not a bohmian i follow more of arisotlian metaphyics but the response the bohmians would give is wave functions would be prior determined by the conditions of the prior point so their would be no uncertainty principle.



Take 1+1/2+1/4+1/8... you coninue that an infinite amount of terms and you get to 2, it works just fine.

Notice though when constructing infinite data sets we can only do it conceptually rather than physically
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#12
''world, all

Notice though when constructing infinite data sets we can only do it conceptually rather than physically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

But infinity in time is still possible and otherwise you would run into issues
-explaining why there is more matter than antimatter
-explaining why you first had a conscious experience via a particular brain*
-explaining why there was a beginning.

*in vintologi this is explain why you having had a conscious experience in simikar brain previously and this infinite chain or regression has no beginning.
 
#13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

But infinity in time is still possible and otherwise you would run into issues
-explaining why there is more matter than antimatter
-explaining why you first had a conscious experience via a particular brain*
-explaining why there was a beginning.

*in vintologi this is explain why you having had a conscious experience in simikar brain previously and this infinite chain or regression has no beginning.


But infinity in time is still possible and otherwise you would run into issues


Time is not infinite what you posted was merely a hypothsis that the universe cyclical as far as we know for right know time exists in it's contention for 13.8 billion years +/- 0.2 billion before that their was no time were left to assume this eternal thing.

As for the 2nd thing your really going for the hard problem of consciousness consiousness can be reduced down to data packets i call it digital materalism tbh.

3rd point logical begging points are a logical neccacity.

4th point you don't get the boltman brain problem if you have a finite universe and a non eternal universe if the copenhagen is true than well you get the boltsman but their are other theories i don't buy into the many worlds interpretation
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#14
Time is not infinite what you posted was merely a hypothsis that the universe cyclical
https://www.vintologi.com/threads/darwinian-vintologi.1/page-3#post-74
as far as we know for right know time exists in it's contention for 13.8 billion years +/- 0.2 billion before that their was no time were left to assume this eternal thing.
There is zero evidence for the ex-nihilo model and there are many issues with
1. it require a multiverse to explain the appearent fine-tuning of the laws of physics for life.
2. if the multiverse exists you would be infinite times more likely to exist in eternal universe.
3. why is there more matter than antimatter?
 
#15
https://www.vintologi.com/threads/darwinian-vintologi.1/page-3#post-74

There is zero evidence for the ex-nihilo model and there are many issues with
1. it require a multiverse to explain the appearent fine-tuning of the laws of physics for life.
2. if the multiverse exists you would be infinite times more likely to exist in eternal universe.
3. why is there more matter than antimatter?

1 st if we are in gods mind we would be real platonic projection of this gods mind so it's not ex nihilo it would just come into exsistance in point x when god thought about creation we are more creatio ex animo created thoughts in yog sothoths head.

As for the 2nd premise the whole idea is the universe or the multiverse would be finite and a vast majority would not cointain life the ones that did would have to be fine tuned.

3rd premise not neccarily your under the assumption that their would have to be infinite mutliverses i don't accept that i take their are a finite amound of universes.

4TH Premise changes nothing so what their is more matter than anti matter
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#16
1 st if we are in gods mind we would be real platonic projection of this gods mind so it's not ex nihilo it would just come into exsistance in point x when god thought about creation we are more creatio ex animo created thoughts in yog sothoths head.
Now you are resorting to a supernatural god.

What created god?
As for the 2nd premise the whole idea is the universe or the multiverse would be finite and a vast majority would not cointain life the ones that did would have to be fine tuned.
That would require all universes in the multiverse to be finite in space and time, if not you would live in an infinite universe.

3rd Premise changes nothing so what their is more matter than anti matter
If time begun at the big bang the amount of matter should be equal to the amount of antimatter.

Sure you could try to invent some process to get more matter but in that case the proton should be unstabke but proton decay has never been observed.
 
#17
Now you are resorting to a supernatural god.

What created god?

That would require all universes in the multiverse to be finite in space and time, if not you would live in an infinite universe.


If time begun at the big bang the amount of matter should be equal to the amount of antimatter.

Sure you could try to invent some process to get more matter but in that case the proton should be unstabke but proton decay has never been observed.


Now you are resorting to a supernatural god.

What created god?

I'm a monistic idealist their is no distinction between supernatural and natural realism and non physicalism are the exact same thing in this system.

''What created god?

That would require all universes in the multiverse to be finite in space and time, if not you would live in an infinite universe.

What created god is a irrelvant question cause what created him from the outside this system if for it to find out the argument is god is uncreated in this reality.

As for all the universes they are not infinite they are finite in size their was a model of this i forget the name it ascribed finite not infinite universes.

If time begun at the big bang the amount of matter should be equal to the amount of antimatter.

Sure you could try to invent some process to get more matter but in that case the proton should be unstabke but proton decay has never been


I theoretically time is relative to the individual the conditions when the universe was made to know are very different as well it would change a lot
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#18
What created god is a irrelvant question cause what created him from the outside this system if for it to find out the argument is god is uncreated in this reality.
As you see you cannot escape infinite regression back in time and the "god solution" isn't a solution at all, you only create an even bigger problem.
As for all the universes they are not infinite they are finite in size their was a model of this i forget the name it ascribed finite not infinite universes.
Only getting finite universes (both in space and time) from a multiverse is rather difficult.

The space of our universe must be constantly expanding or you would eventually reach an edge, the only clean solution i have found is the big rip cyclic universe model (which is crazy but probably correct).
 
#19
As you see you cannot escape infinite regression back in time and the "god solution" isn't a solution at all, you only create an even bigger problem.

Only getting finite universes (both in space and time) from a multiverse is rather difficult.

The space of our universe must be constantly expanding or you would eventually reach an edge, the only clean solution i have found is the big rip cyclic universe model (which is crazy but probably correct).

As you see you cannot escape infinite regression back in time and the "god solution" isn't a solution at all, you only create an even bigger problem.


I don't know if things outside space time need a begging at all the universe is still in space time has not always been but space has i don't know the same for the being outside both space and time.


Only getting finite universes (both in space and time) from a multiverse is rather difficult.

The space of our universe must be constantly expanding or you would eventually reach an edge, the only clean solution i have found is the big rip cyclic universe model (which is crazy but probably correct).


Why do you assume finite multiple universes must be some sort of a infinite model ? furthermore i tend to think the universe has an ending and we don't know if their is an edge of the universe or not we know it's expanding the universe might just be a trillion times bigger than our human conclusions
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#20
I don't know if things outside space time need a begging at all the universe is still in space time has not always been but space has i don't know the same for the being outside both space and time.
You are just creating av even bigger problem now, from a problem that can be solved just by cyclic cosmology to something we cannit even begin trying to resolve.

Why do you assume finite multiple universes must be some sort of a infinite model ? furthermore i tend to think the universe has an ending and we don't know if their is an edge of the universe or not we know it's expanding the universe might just be a trillion times bigger than our human conclusions
If there are several universes with different laws of nature it follow naturally that some of the universes produced would be infinite.

So even if you could get a time-ending singularity in some universes in others saidsingularity would be impossible and thus infinire universes would be produced.

It is very likely that the current singularities would disappear once we find the correct model of quantum gravity.

Example: singularities are not possible in loop quantum gravity.
 
#21
You are just creating av even bigger problem now, from a problem that can be solved just by cyclic cosmology to something we cannit even begin trying to resolve.


If there are several universes with different laws of nature it follow naturally that some of the universes produced would be infinite.

So even if you could get a time-ending singularity in some universes in others saidsingularity would be impossible and thus infinire universes would be produced.

It is very likely that the current singularities would disappear once we find the correct model of quantum gravity.

Example: singularities are not possible in loop quantum gravity.

''You are just creating av even bigger problem now, from a problem that can be solved just by cyclic cosmology to something we cannit even begin trying to resolve.''


Not even as far as we are things in space time all have creations beings outside don't necessarily require any the argument still stands it's a finite universe and the universe itself isn't fully eternal it had a begging point what happened before we don't know fully however it would appear it had some form of a begging point.

If there are several universes with different laws of nature it follow naturally that some of the universes produced would be infinite.


This only makes sense if you assume their are infinite multiverses yes in some it would inevitable these universes would have infinite energy however not so much in a finite set it could possible lead to transfinite energy not in size but in energy limit notice though that even transfinite have begging.

So even if you could get a time-ending singularity in some universes in others saidsingularity would be impossible and thus infinire universes would be produced.


Again your kind of question begging and assuming their are infinite universes in a finite universe this doesn't need to be the case.

It is very likely that the current singularities would disappear once we find the correct model of quantum gravity.

And why is that ?

Example: singularities are not possible in loop quantum gravity.

Your kind of assuming though we should take the quantum gravity path i take more of string theory and singularities are possible within string theory i mean it's kind of a given really string theory literally helps connect to the mind of god
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#22
This only makes sense if you assume their are infinite multiverses yes in some it would inevitable these universes would have infinite energy however not so much in a finite set it could possible lead to transfinite energy not in size but in energy limit notice though that even transfinite have begging.
It's also the case when the number if universes is large.

string theory i mean it's kind of a given really string theory literally helps connect to the mind of god
There are at least 10^272000 versions of string theory, they are all wrong of course.

 
#23
It's also the case when the number if universes is large.


There are at least 10^272000 versions of string theory, they are all wrong of course.


It's also the case when the number if universes is large.


As far as we know the universe is massive however it could also be true that it is a trillion times bigger than we assumed and the universe itself has a magnitudal limit itself we don't know.

There are at least 10^272000 versions of string theory, they are all wrong of course.


Fair point it has issue but their are not that many version of string theory the main problem seems to be we can't measure these other dimensions yet however their are mathematical models for how it is theoretically possible for us to measure these other dimensions 1 way would be to use mathmathical equations to find hidden eyes to peer into this realm cause we have no measuring apparatus to measure realms outside this one from this point on it is merely axiomatic truths not general guesses but merely an average between the truths
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
#24
Fair point it has issue but their are not that many version of string theory the main problem seems to be we can't measure these other dimensions yet
No the problem isn't that the extra dimensions cannot be measured, the issue is that string theories have failed to make correct predictions or any predictions that actually can be tested. String theoriests have not been able to get the details of the standard model despite having 10^272000 versions to work with.

Let's now compare it to the non-commutative geometry approach

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Connes-Lott-Chamseddine-Barrett+model

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/023021/meta

• makes predictions we can actually test.
• gived us the details of the standard model.
• explanation for dark matter.
 
#25
No the problem isn't that the extra dimensions cannot be measured, the issue is that string theories have failed to make correct predictions or any predictions that actually can be tested. String theoriests have not been able to get the details of the standard model despite having 10^272000 versions to work with.

Let's now compare it to the non-commutative geometry approach

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Connes-Lott-Chamseddine-Barrett+model

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/023021/meta

• makes predictions we can actually test.
• gived us the details of the standard model.
• explanation for dark matter.


Your right their seems to be a issue deciding which 1 to go with however their is something called super string theory that does away with a lot of mysterious parts of it.


Let's now compare it to the non-commutative geometry approach

https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Connes-Lott-Chamseddine-Barrett+model

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/023021/meta

• makes predictions we can actually test.
• gived us the details of the standard model.
• explanation for dark matter.


Understand this though the predictions it does make supposed to unite all of science in the form of the theory of everthing it's a bit hard to prove certain things when it's supposed to encompass all things however we cannot physically test this cause were talking about things at the plank length it's a small length however we have mathematical proofs of such concepts and you yourself stated the smallest subsets of ultimate reality cannot be fully known mathematics is just our pathetic concept at understanding the greater reality as a whole we can never know the true complexity of reality
 
Top