## An argument for God's existence

Next
• 11.6k
Natural would be quantum fluctuations or such. Non-natural would be God.

Why would you be associating "zero probability in some finite time periods" with god? That couldn't be more arbitrary.
• 11.6k
I really need to take a break from this board sometimes. The, uh, let's call it "irrationality" just drives me bonkers after awhile.
• 2.1k
I know the feeling.
• 496
Yes. In two dimensions: If the y axis is time and the x axis is space, then movement along the x axis represents movement at the speed of light wholly in the spacial direction. The temporal co-ordinate is always zero in this case.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit here. You cannot take a mathematical model that is developed for a 4 dimensional space, drop one dimension, and then apply the model's conclusions anyway.

The reason you can have a photon that has "no movement" on the time axis but that still changes position is because the observer does "move" on the time axis. It is the changing relation or "distance on the time axis" between the observer and the photon that creates change.

Using your two axis example: If you drop the time axis the photon is just a number. It would be a value X, and X would never change. Only by adding a second axis is the number X changed into a coordinate (X/Y), and you can then get change in X if you move along the Y axis.
• 2.1k
OK photons experience no time but all lengths are contracted to zero so I guess you can argue they experience no movement.

I still maintain that photons exist outside of time, so timeless existence is possible.
• 2.9k
- Natural events. With infinite time we expect these to occur an infinite number of times. Which is not what we have evidence for (only one Big Bang).
- Unnatural events. We expect these to occur a singular number of times. Which is what we have evidence for (one Big Bang).

Evidence? That's news! What evidence?
• 2.1k
Evidence? That's news! What evidence?

Astronomy gives evidence in support of one unnatural, Big Bang. If there had been multiple Big Bangs, I think Astronomer's would have noticed something.
• 2.9k
Astronomy gives evidence in support of one unnatural, Big Bang. If there had been multiple Big Bangs, I think Astronomer's would have noticed something.

Really? How? Lack of evidence is not conclusive evidence of a lack. In this case lack of evidence is conclusive only of a lack of evidence. You know better than this. What's your game?
• 2.1k
Lack of evidence is pretty conclusive evidence that the Big Bang is not a natural occurrence. It only happened 14 billion years ago so if Big Bangs are natural; we should expect lots of them in our region of spacetime.

Or if you think about it in terms of Eternal inflation theory... there should be infinite instances of 'eternal' inflation happening with infinite time - all going on right now due to the fact they are eternal.
• 11.6k
Lack of evidence is pretty conclusive evidence that the Big Bang is not a natural occurrence.

Which brings us back to the unanswered question of "Why would you be associating 'zero probability in some finite time periods' with god? That couldn't be more arbitrary."
• 11.6k
By the way, probability isn't the same thing as whether something actually happens.

Which is one reason why it's important to nail down just how we're figuring out the probability for anything, just how there's merit to any particular probability statement.
• 11.6k
Also, if the exact way that we're figuring out any probabiilty statement, with relation to arbitrary finite time periods, isn't important, wouldn't you have to conclude that every event is non-natural?

After all, you don't have a tree popping up in your lawn every millisecond. So that would have to be non-natural on your view. Which would make the whole natural/non-natural distinction moot in the first place.
• 2.1k
Which brings us back to the unanswered question of "Why would you be associating 'zero probability in some finite time periods' with god? That couldn't be more arbitrary."

A zero probability event is by definition unnatural; caused by some unnatural agency.

A non-zero probability event is by definition natural, for example, random quantum fluctuations over infinite time (the mechanism by which the Big Bang is touted). Clearly there would have to be infinite Big Bangs if they where natural events.
• 11.6k

If the definition of "unnatural" is "zero probability in some finite time," what does that have to do with agency of any sort?
• 11.6k

For example, take a universe where we have just one particle that can radioactively decay to two different subsequent particles (and that particle can do the same, etc.)

So at T1 we have particle A.

At T2, A decays to either B or C.
If A decays to B, C is no longer possible, and vice versa.

At T3, if B, it decays to either D or E. If C, it decays to either F or G.

=========================================================

What can we say about the above in terms of probability?

At T1, there's a 50% probability that A will decay to either B or C.

If A decays to B at T2, there's a zero probability that we can have C in the universe in the finite time period from T2 to T3. And there is also a zero probability that we can have C from T3 to T4, and so on. C was only a 50% probability at T1.

Likewise, B was a 50% probability at T1, a 100% probability at T2, and a zero probability from T3 to T4 and so on.

So, per your definitions, both C and B are unnatural.

Now, the question is, what do C and B have to do with agency?
• 2.1k
C and B both start with a 50% (correction) probability so they are both natural.

Anyhow, thats a classical universe; I'm thinking of a quantum universe where quantum fluctuations can produce particles out of nothing given long enough periods.
• 2.1k
Sorry I meant 50% probability.
• 11.6k
C and B both start with a 50% (correction) probability so they are both natural.

But they have finite time periods in which there's a zero probability of them occuring.

If the universe I described were to begin that way and last for an infinite time, B and C would only have a very narrow window of occuring, and they'd occur just once.
• 2.1k
But they have finite time periods in which there's a zero probability of them occuring.

OK but then they are unnatural events for the time periods for which there is zero probability of occurring.

We are talking Big Bangs which are theorised to come from Quantum Fluctuations which could happen at any time; IE there is always a non-zero probability of a Big Bang if it's a natural event.
• 11.6k
OK but then they are unnatural events for the time periods for which there is zero probability of occurring.

So they're natural and then change to unnatural?

And what do they have to do with agency?

I was never under the impression that you were only talking about the Big Bang, by the way. I thought you were talking about any arbitrary event. I thought the Big Bang was just an example.

At any rate, there could very well be a zero probability that a Big Bang would occur after the one which did occur. It could need particular conditions that will never obtain again, despite infinite time.
• 2.1k
So they're natural and then change to unnatural?

If only A can decay to B or C and it decays to B, then it would be unnatural for C to occur. An unnatural agency like God could cause C to occur though.

I was never under the impression that you were only talking about the Big Bang, by the way. I thought you were talking about any arbitrary event. I thought the Big Bang was just an example.

My arguments apply to Big Bangs or any other universe creation event.

At any rate, there could very well be a zero probability that a Big Bang would occur after the one which did occur. It could need particular conditions that will never obtain again, despite infinite time.

That would mean universes could not be cause by quantum fluctuations meaning cause and effect is back in the picture meaning the prime mover argument applies.
• 198
I agree, God exists but that is clearly not a viable argument. Why? Because you made a suggestion to the solution of a problem. Wich I'm sure anyone could see.
• 16
I don't belive your claim that God exist. Do you have any evidence to back your claim?
Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal