[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

But seriously, why in principle can't a physical phenomenon be uncaused if God can?

Sigh… Once again, because any physical phenomenon is by definition in space/time.

Remember this:

Were it not for time, events would not occur.

Were it not for space, things would not exist.

It is "about" the geometry of physical reality. But evidently the geometric physics has escaped you for you also said:

Surely If God exists in a plane where causality doesn't exist, why can't a purely physical phenomena from this plane exist, and govern our universe?

Any “thing” or “event” - including a phenomenon – which exists “in a plane” or membrane (or brane) - or as a plane or membrane or brane --- is by definition “in” space/time.

Moreover, no “thing” or “event” can exist in the absence of the space/time continuum. And that therefore is the bottom line of causality in physical cosmology and why there had to have been a beginning ex nihilio.

Remember that although our vision and minds are limited to a 4 dimensional comprehension (3 of space and 1 of time) – additional spatial and temporal dimensions are both possible and necessary to explain the phenomena we observe.

Take matter for instance. Of the critical density of the universe, 5% is ordinary matter, 25 % is dark matter (high gravity like the center of galaxies) and 70% is dark energy (which has a likeness to negative gravity causing the universe to expand creating space/time as it does).

But neither Fermilab nor CERN have ever been able to make or observe ordinary matter (Higgs field/boson) – much less can dark matter and dark energy be put to empirical tests in a lab. Currently, physicists are proposing other theories to the Standard Model which will no doubt be embraced if the Higgs field/boson is not observed in the next round of tests at CERN.

Among these theories is the suggestion that matter in four dimensions is a shadow of momentum components of particles in a fifth dimension which we do not yet understand. Another theory (Wesson) is that matter in four dimension may be multiply imaged as much as 10⁸⁰ times from a single particle in the fifth time-like dimension.

And all of these physical phenomena are “in” space/time – because those additional spatial or temporal dimensions are part and parcel of the space/time continuum.

Why is it requisite that uncaused phenomena must be godly, being the guy you prey to etc. What is inherent to these personal-god characteristics which allow God to be uncaused?

Sigh … Once again, there can be no uncaused phenomena because phenomena occur “in” space/time. In the absence of space/time, they would not exist.

They are all therefore caused.

There are many universals, forms, qualia and other non-spatial, non-temporal, non-corporeal “things” which would likewise not exist in the absence of space/time. Among these are pain and pleasure, information (successful communication,) autonomy, mathematical structures, theories, intentions, physical laws, physical constants, threeness, treeness, redness and so on.

None of these things would exist in the absence of space/time - they are therefore the effect of a cause.

Moreover, causation itself is a non-corporeal, non-spatial, non-temporal phenomenon which likewise cannot exist in the absence of space/time – and is therefore the effect of a cause.

The only possible uncaused cause of causation itself must by definition be beyond the space/time continuum per se - existence itself – uncaused and singular.

Moreover, this existence, uncaused and singular must also have wanted there to be a beginning. In other words, I AM is willful, having personality.

Or to put it another way, He caused causation per se. Causation didn’t exist until He gave rise to a beginning, of space, time, energy, matter, things, events, qualia, logic, laws, etc.

Why would God being able to read our minds and influence people etc have forbearance on whether he needed a designer? Why must you associate the two?

Your above questions make no sense to me. If you’d care to rephrase, I’ll try to respond.

[TrisB]

Bear with me here. Why is there only room outside spacetime for God? You are defining God as something outside the realm where physical things live, yet isn't God a thing in itself? Any thing which god is made of is still a thing, and if you insist on lumping all things INTO the cosmos then do the same with god. If you want to argue that god isn't a thing, then I would agree. But wouldn't he then be nothing? If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it. If at some point his proverbial hand would have to cross the boundary of the physical realm whenever he interacts with it. He however cannot do so without being part of it. If he doesn't ever interact with the physical realm then he is, as far as we are concerned, non existent.

[this existence, uncaused and singular must also have wanted there to be a beginning]

WHY!? Firstly, you have utterly disposed with the possibility of infinitely negative time existing (with time being zero at the big bang, say). I will address this first. Why don't we have a problem with infinitely POSITIVE time existing? When the heat-death of the universe occurs in infinitely positive time (as by 2nd law of t.d.) the universe stagnates into an ever-unchanging homogeneous infinitesimal goup. Time only has a direction as a part of our anthropocentric perception of the universe, that is of increasing entropy, yet isentropic particle interactions have no perception of temporal direction since they have no entropic signpost (many Feynman diagrams do violate causality as we know it - yet they are empirically correct). If the universe started as a zero, and was braught into finity then it will end (in the limit of infinite time, by 2nd l.o.t.d.) as a zero. (I assume you understand that. Even if god intervenes to stop this, then we either violate our presupposition that he is outside our spacetime, or put him inside our spacetime, where he must bow to the same rules we do)

A little lateral thought begs the question: isn't direction in time arbitrary? I think we are neurally equipped to perceive a temporal direction, and can thus accept an infinite future, yet why are we all so concerned with the opposite end? If our inability to comprehend infinitely negative time drives us to believe in a creator-god, then wouldn't we then need a destroyer-god at the end of time by the same logic? If we need to transition from a null to a zero we require a creator, yet why is this any more necessary than transitioning from a zero to a null, opposite to the creator-god? Do the laws of physics really still exist after the heat-death of the universe, any more than before its birth? (In equivalence to the "tree falling in the woods and not making a sound" argument). Why must the "rules" be created at one particular end of the universe - the beginning - and not the other?

What if the two ends are joined in a cyclic fashion? The cycle conceptually requires no beginning, since infinities are acceptable by its very nature. Then couldn't we rule out both Gods altogether? These situations are very fun to concoct and are not very instructive, but it goes to show that God is only STRICTLY confined to that which we cannot imagine. The more we think, the less we can assume about him.

Secondly, why must we lump together all the religious baggage into this otherworldly figure God, which we postulate to exist outside our spacetime. Even if my rantings above were flawed, finding a logical necessity for this figure IN NO WAY justifies or validates any religious standpoint, other than that there is some creator-God. It does not justify a personal-God, it does not validate any religious morality and it does not give him a beard! What else can we infer about this god figure, purely from logical speculation?

[I AM is willful, having personality]

Why did god will the universe to happen? Why couldn't it have been an accident? Why why why why? We KNOW nothing about god for sure. I don't think you can use science as a weapon to justify god, in the way you are trying to. Regards, Tris.