Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[harvey1]

Why are you bothering with this line of argument? The posters contributing to this thread are smart enough to realise that the phrase "the paradoxes" can have an entirely different meaning to the phrase "all the paradoxes".

It was references Zeno's paradoxes. Also, when trying to resolve the arrow paradox the author did not mention calculus as a solution. Rather, the author mentioned current theories of science. Calculus says nothing about quantum vagueness or special relativity.

If distinct events E1 and E2 are materially connected, and E1 occurs prior to E2 existing (and E1 no longer exists after E2 comes into existence), then if they are materially connected how can E1 no longer exist and how can E2 come about as a result of E1 (i.e., since to be materially connected both events must exist at the same time)?

Why insist on a material connection between events?

I don't insist on a material connection. In fact, I oppose that solution. Hence the reason why I keep mentioning it as a problem for materialists.

Why can they not be connected through their particular time/event line? A causal relationship via duration rather than some material connection?

But, that strikes me as entailing metaphysical relations and laws.

You cannot take one paragraph out of an article and use it as evidence without considering it's context. You certainly can't put forward the suggestion that the author may be contemplating a metaphysical explanation on the basis of a single paragraph.
What led you to the assumption that McLaughlin was considering a metaphysical resolution?

He had mentioned that motion might "jump" and he had mentioned that motion might involve an explanation that is outside of space and time.

[harvey1]

I noticed that one poster here is confusing atheism as a rejection of the supernatural with a rejection in a belief in a theistic or pantheistic God. For example, I think that a large number of pantheists reject supernaturalism altogether. For example, German idealism (e.g., Hegel, Schelling, etc.) completely rejected supernaturalism, but kept to a belief in God.

[wuntext]

Also, when trying to resolve the arrow paradox the author did not mention calculus as a solution.

No he didn't, did he? And that leaves you with a bit of a problem. Because this paper is one of two you produced as evidence for your remark:

Code: Select all

"Are you still defending the so-called calculus resolution after two papers shot that down?"

How can something - to use the unpleasantly bombastic phrase - be "shot down" without actually addressing the issue? If the author didn't mention calculus as being a solution - either correct or incorrect - then what exactly is being "shot down"?
Why does the fact that the author of this paper, himself a physicist, chooses to address the Arrow Paradox through physics, rather than mathematics, actually invalidate addressing it through mathematics?

Are you going for the "Argument from Silence" here?

"The paper does not mention calculus, therefore calculus is "shot down.""

Presumably, you will adhere to the same standards of evidence and acknowledge that as Silagadze also does not mention "god", "metaphysics" or "miracle" in his paper you are now going to accept such arguments are "shot down", and his resolution based on physics is correct?

Rather, the author mentioned current theories of science. Calculus says nothing about quantum vagueness or special relativity.

Another Red Herring. Who in this thread has even hinted calculus addresses Special Relativity? Quantum vagueness? Another Red Herring. How many times is it now? Twice? Three times? Quantum 'vagueness' is meaningless philosophical pseudo-science that has no place in math or physics.

I don't insist on a material connection. In fact, I oppose that solution. Hence the reason why I keep mentioning it as a problem for materialists.

Then why present your opponents with such restricted options?

(a) distinct static events, or (b) distinct vague events, or (c) identical static events, or (d) identical vague events.

Why no "indistinct" option anywhere? For example: (e) - "indistinct continuous" an option through the probalistic nature of the Uncertainty Principle?

But, that strikes me as entailing metaphysical relations and laws.

Why?

He had mentioned that motion might "jump" and he had mentioned that motion might involve an explanation that is outside of space and time

In the previous paragraph McLaughlin was setting up his solution to the problem by posing various alternatives

1. uniform motion
2. instantaneous motion
3. something outside of time and space

As I posted earlier, he then goes on to give his solution using invariant fields. He wasn't contemplating a metaphysical solution "outside of time and space" as being valid, it's the first and last time he mentions "outside of time and space", it was a possibility to be considered before rejecting it in favour of his solution.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

I noticed that one poster here is confusing atheism as a rejection of the supernatural with a rejection in a belief in a theistic or pantheistic God. For example, I think that a large number of pantheists reject supernaturalism altogether. For example, German idealism (e.g., Hegel, Schelling, etc.) completely rejected supernaturalism, but kept to a belief in God

Just when I thought we were making nice!

You are going to have to define your terms here, Harvey. Atheists who believe in god don't sound like Atheists to us normal people, please translate.

I am not confused, I reject all superstitious non-sense, that includes the subset most call Theism.

Grumpy

[Goat]

harvey1

I noticed that one poster here is confusing atheism as a rejection of the supernatural with a rejection in a belief in a theistic or pantheistic God. For example, I think that a large number of pantheists reject supernaturalism altogether. For example, German idealism (e.g., Hegel, Schelling, etc.) completely rejected supernaturalism, but kept to a belief in God

Just when I thought we were making nice!

You are going to have to define your terms here, Harvey. Atheists who believe in god don't sound like Atheists to us normal people, please translate.

I am not confused, I reject all superstitious non-sense, that includes the subset most call Theism.

Grumpy

He did say 'pantheists'. .. Panthiests are not atheists. However, most atheists I notice (not all), reject supernatrualism.

However, a panthiest is not an atheist.

[George S]

However, a panthiest is not an atheist.

Maybe not, but a pantheist does not have to believe in magic as Theists must.

Those pantheists who don't believe in magic, but rather a spiritual identity separate from all physical concerns, act, generally, indistinguishably from atheists.

[AB]

To clear up the equation: We are not star dust.

[Goat]

To clear up the equation: We are not star dust.

And what evidence do you have for this statement?

[AB]

Well. The evidence is right now. Your are able to ask that question. You are able to walk across your room. That is a lot more than stardust can do. Given that, you are not stardust.

To clear up the equation: We are not star dust.

And what evidence do you have for this statement?

[Goat]

Well. The evidence is right now. Your are able to ask that question. You are able to walk across your room. That is a lot more than stardust can do. Given that, you are not stardust.

To clear up the equation: We are not star dust.

And what evidence do you have for this statement?

And how do you know that? You are making an assumption to 'prove' the very assumption you are making.

Not very good evidence , logic or theology.