Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8872 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-17-2018 12:22 PM
201 online now:
Faith, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (8 members, 193 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Son of Man
Post Volume:
Total: 842,140 Year: 16,963/29,783 Month: 951/1,956 Week: 454/331 Day: 37/76 Hour: 1/14


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
18NextFF
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 76 of 268 (642339)
11-27-2011 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by frako
11-27-2011 2:44 PM


Re: Reply to Percy
Ah, but in designtheorist's imaginary alternative universe Hawking also denies that the Big Bang happened. You see, his delusional world all fits together with perfect consistency, and is also bollocks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by frako, posted 11-27-2011 2:44 PM frako has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 77 of 268 (642344)
11-27-2011 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by PaulK
11-27-2011 10:50 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
In Message 52, you wrote:
(To avoid confusion I do not mean to explain why the event did not happen, but to explain why it did - even though it did not. And if that doesn't make sense to you, it's probably because it doesn't ).

I agreed with you only in the sense that what you wrote did not make sense. Let me try to explain your error once again.

Your logic shows an unexamined and false premise. Your unexamined premise is "Nothing exists outside of the material realm of space and time." The problem with this premise is that if a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, then he or she exists outside of space and time. Your entire argument is built around your false premise that nothing exists outside of space and time and so you are committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning.

Now let's return to your OP where you write:

The purpose of this topic is to discuss the notion "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" and it's relationship to our Universe and the implications of a finite past.

If a Universe Designer or Creator God exists, he or she did not begin to exist so there is no need for a cause. If the universe began to exist at the big bang, then it needs a cause. The only cause available is something which exists outside of space and time - a Universe Designer or Creator God.

This explains why Stephen Hawking says the big bang "smacks of divine intervention."

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2011 10:50 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 2:33 AM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 78 of 268 (642345)
11-27-2011 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by frako
11-27-2011 2:44 PM


Reply to frako
Yep! That's the one!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by frako, posted 11-27-2011 2:44 PM frako has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 79 of 268 (642346)
11-27-2011 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
11-27-2011 12:50 PM


Reply to Dr Adequate #69
It's not just an appeal to authority, it's deeply dishonest, since Hawking himself thinks the exact opposite of the view designtheorist wishes to ascribe to him.

Not true. Hawking's views have changed over time. At the time he wrote the passage I quoted, Hawking did not dispute the fact the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." In fact, it was this fact that cause Hawking to go searching for another explanation for the beginning of the universe. Only in his most recent book has Hawking said a creator is not needed. As I mentioned, I am preparing a thread on Hawking coming up. I hope you will participate.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-27-2011 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-28-2011 12:12 AM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 100 by frako, posted 11-28-2011 4:58 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 80 of 268 (642347)
11-27-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Percy
11-27-2011 12:07 PM


Re: Reply to Percy
The idea of sudden creation ex nihilo is compatible with one specific god, namely the God of the Old Testament...

Actually, I believe the idea of sudden creation is also compatible with the story of creation in Islam.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Percy, posted 11-27-2011 12:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16052
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 81 of 268 (642356)
11-28-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate #69
At the time he wrote the passage I quoted, Hawking did not dispute the fact the big bang "smacks of divine intervention." In fact, it was this fact that cause Hawking to go searching for another explanation for the beginning of the universe. Only in his most recent book has Hawking said a creator is not needed.

Not one word of this is remotely true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:52 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 268 (642368)
11-28-2011 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
11-22-2011 10:21 AM


From Beginning to End
To save the argument then, we need a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist", we need to show that it is in fact true that everything that meets this definition has a cause - taking care to deal with the extreme cases - and we need to accept this definition when building on the argument.

Are not beginnings and ends simply arbitrarily marked points in space and time that we humanswith our measly, puny, insufficient brainscreate in order to categorize reality into discrete and comprehensible chunks of information processable by those same measly, puny, insufficient brains?

What solid evidence is there that beginnings and ends actually exist outside of us merely making them up?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : clarity


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 10:21 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 83 of 268 (642372)
11-28-2011 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by designtheorist
11-27-2011 9:46 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

I agreed with you only in the sense that what you wrote did not make sense. Let me try to explain your error once again.

Your logic shows an unexamined and false premise. Your unexamined premise is "Nothing exists outside of the material realm of space and time."


The only error you are showing is yours. My argument does not use any such premise. If you imagine that one of my premises implicitly makes this assumption then you will have to show it. And please only deal with premises that are actually present in my argument, not those that are solely present in your imagination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by designtheorist, posted 11-27-2011 9:46 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:38 PM PaulK has responded

    
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 84 of 268 (642393)
11-28-2011 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
11-28-2011 2:33 AM


Re: Reply to PaulK
I think I have already demonstrated your unexamined, implicit and false premise but I will try again. Your argument can be reduced to this simple syllogism.

1. No timeless state or timeless and immaterial beings (such as Universe Designer or Creator God) exist prior to the beginning of time. (This is your unexamined, implicit and false premise.)
2. Everything that exists at the first moment of time came into existence simultaneously with time and so there is no prior moment in which they did not exist.
3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings.
4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition.

In this form, your argument appears to be logically consistent at the first glance. That is to say, it appears your conclusion follows from your premises. But the first premise (the unexamined premise) is false. It has NOT been demonstrated that no timeless state or timeless beings existed prior to the big bang.

The possibility of a timeless state inhabited by a timeless and immaterial being capable of causing the big bang is denied in your unexamined premise. The acceptance of this possibility is binary, that is to say, one either accepts the possibility of a timeless state and timeless being or one rejects the possibility. There is no third choice. Among those who grant the possibility, some may accept the existence of a Designer/Creator and some may be doubtful.

The argument you raise comes out of the discussion of an earlier thread began at Message 1. This thread is an attempt to argue against the claim the big bang supports the idea of a universe designer or creator God. You are trying to find a way in which the big bang does not support the idea of a designer/creator. The existence of your unexamined premise shows you are committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning or begging the question.

You have denied that you have the unexamined premise I have identified. This is a testable hypothesis. Since the possibility of a timeless state and timeless Designer/Creator prior to the big bang is binary, you can try to make your argument while explicitly stating your belief in the possibility of a Designer/Creator.

Your argument would then look something like this:

1. It is possible a timeless state inhabited by a timeless and immaterial being (such as Universe Designer or Creator God) existed prior to the beginning of time at the big bang.
2. Everything that exists at the first moment of time came into existence simultaneously with time and so there is no prior moment in which they did not exist. (This is where the argument breaks down because a timeless state was "prior" to the creation of time.)
3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings.
4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition.

In this form, your argument is not even logically consistent. When your implicit premise is reversed and made explicit, your argument does not hold up - it is pure nonsense.

The big bang tells us that first there was nothing in the physical realm and then the universe burst into existence in a flash of light and energy. Only something outside of the physical realm could be responsible.

Edited by designtheorist, : Clarification

Edited by designtheorist, : Typo!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 2:33 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 11-28-2011 12:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Rahvin, posted 11-28-2011 12:58 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2011 1:15 PM designtheorist has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3964
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 85 of 268 (642395)
11-28-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:38 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
You also needed to point out how PaulK stupidly ruled out the IPU as an a priori assumption.

What an idiot, that PaulK.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:38 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1138 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 86 of 268 (642396)
11-28-2011 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:38 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
1. No timeless state or timeless and immaterial beings (such as Universe Designer or Creator God) exist prior to the beginning of time. (This is your unexamined, implicit and false premise.)

"Prior to the beginning of time" is a logical oxymoron. You cannot have a point on a ray located before the origin of the ray, which is what you're referring to.

2. Everything that exists at the first moment of time came into existence simultaneously with time and so there is no prior moment in which they did not exist.

Nothing "came into existence." There was no moment of time in which everything that exists did not exist; the full mass-energy of the Universe has existed at every moment of time, as per the laws of thermodynamics. To "come into existence" there must be a prior moment where the thing in question did not exist, and there is no such thing as a moment prior to the first moment, as per above.

3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings.

And why shouldn't it be? "Causality" is a notion that we know applies within the Universe, but we have no idea or way of knowing whether causality applies to Universes themselves. It is entirely possible that existence is the default state, that Unvierses are inevitable, or any of a million other potential hypotheses that you are excluding by applying a law of physics to a place where you have no idea of its actual applicability.

4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition.

Your every complaint about the argument is wrought with logical errors. You aren't even trying to discuss the argument using its own definitions - you're continuing to talk about locations in time "before" the beginning of time, in effect referring to a point farther North than the North Pole. Your arguments aren't logically self-consistent with any sensible definition of terms, and thus are invalid.


The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:38 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:08 PM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 89 by Jon, posted 11-28-2011 1:19 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1784 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 87 of 268 (642397)
11-28-2011 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rahvin
11-28-2011 12:58 PM


Reply to Rahvin
"Prior to the beginning of time" is a logical oxymoron. You cannot have a point on a ray located before the origin of the ray, which is what you're referring to.

Unambiguous word usage can be difficult when you are discussing unusual subjects. It appears you may have forgotten we are discussing a different realm outside of our "spacetime." What word would you suggest I use to describe events in this timeless state "prior" to the big bang?

Or perhaps you are committing the same logical fallacy that PaulK is committing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rahvin, posted 11-28-2011 12:58 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 11-28-2011 1:29 PM designtheorist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14490
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 88 of 268 (642398)
11-28-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 12:38 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

I think I have already demonstrated your unexamined, implicit and false premise but I will try again. Your argument can be reduced to this simple syllogism.

Simply asserting that my argument is circular because it "assumes" something that is NEITHER a premise nor the conclusion shows nothing.

quote:

1. No timeless state or timeless and immaterial beings (such as Universe Designer or Creator God) exist prior to the beginning of time. (This is your unexamined, implicit and false premise.)

This is not part of my argument at all. However since it is necessarily true (nothing can be temporally prior to time in the general sense since temporal priority is based on a measure of time) it really doesn't matter.

Let us also note that just a little while ago you were asserting that the "circular argument" premise was:


"Nothing exists outside of the material realm of space and time."

Which does NOT assume that there is anything temporally prior to time.

quote:

2. Everything that exists at the first moment of time came into existence simultaneously with time and so there is no prior moment in which they did not exist.

This is also inaccurate. It is better stated:

Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist.

quote:

3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings.
4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition.

You will note that this stands on it's own. You will also note that the conclusion is NOT the "premise" which you added, which is in itself enough to refute your claim of circular reasoning.

I will also note that you omit supporting parts of the argument.

quote:

You have denied that you have the unexamined premise I have identified. This is a testable hypothesis.

Yes. You can read the argument and find that there is no such premise. Message 1. Or we can simply look at your so-called reconstruction and see that if we leave out the extraneous premise 1 (your addition) and correct premise 2, the argument still works, even without the parts you omitted.

quote:

Since the possibility of a timeless state and timeless Designer/Creator prior to the big bang is binary, you can try to make your argument while explicitly stating your belief in the possibility of Designer/Creator.

My tests are better since they don't require adding adding self-contradictory premises.

quote:

1. It is possible a timeless state inhabited by a timeless and immaterial being (such as Universe Designer or Creator God) existed prior to the beginning of time at the big bang.

In other words you wish to smuggle in the self-contradictory notion of a state temporally prior to time. And that is really what this "test" is about. Nothing to do with the possibility of a timeless and immaterial creator.

Just to encourage a proper understanding of logical fallacies, ASSUMING a contradiction is a logical fallacy (and therefore your new premise invalidates your argument). Not assuming a contradiction is perfectly fine.

quote:

You see? Without your unexamined premise, your argument does not hold up, it is pure nonsense.

Let us note that the possibility of a timeless and immaterial creator is irrelevant even to your argument. The only part of your premise that matters is the assertion of a state temporally prior to time. But since that is a logical impossibility including it invalidates the argument.

I'm sure that you think that you were trying a clever trick there, but it falls apart. Even your "reconstruction" is enough to refute your argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 12:38 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:30 PM PaulK has responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 268 (642399)
11-28-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rahvin
11-28-2011 12:58 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
"Prior to the beginning of time" is a logical oxymoron. You cannot have a point on a ray located before the origin of the ray, which is what you're referring to.

Unless it's 'rayless'. If something is timeless then it can easily exist outside of Time. However, I wouldn't necessarily utilize temporal terminologies such as 'prior' in speaking of a timeless thing's relationship to Time; I'd probably just be satisfied with saying that it is 'outside of Time'.

Nothing "came into existence." There was no moment of time in which everything that exists did not exist; the full mass-energy of the Universe has existed at every moment of time, as per the laws of thermodynamics. To "come into existence" there must be a prior moment where the thing in question did not exist, and there is no such thing as a moment prior to the first moment, as per above.

This assumes that there are no timeless things that can exist outside of and independent of Time.

you're continuing to talk about locations in time "before" the beginning of time

I'm not here to defend designtheorist, but I would like to point out that they specifically mentioned they were talking not about 'locations in time' but about timeless states and beings. While it is certainly nonsensical to describe these relationships with words such as 'before' (or 'prior'), the basic premise that timeless things can exist outside of Time cannot be questioned.

We can, however, question whether timeless things actually do exist or not and what evidence we might have on that matter.

Jon


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rahvin, posted 11-28-2011 12:58 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:35 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10239
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 90 of 268 (642400)
11-28-2011 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by designtheorist
11-28-2011 1:08 PM


Re: Reply to Rahvin
I know what a fan of Hawking quotes you are. So here is one:

Hawking writes:

Does it require a Creator to decree how the universe began? Or is the initial state of the universe, determined by a law of science? In fact, this question would arise even if the histories of the universe went back to the infinite past. But it is more immediate if the universe began only 15 billion years ago. The problem of what happens at the beginning of time is a bit like the question of what happened at the edge of the world, when people thought the world was flat. Is the world a flat plate with the sea pouring over the edge? I have tested this experimentally. I have been round the world, and I have not fallen off. As we all know, the problem of what happens at the edge of the world was solved when people realized that the world was not a flat plate, but a curved surface. Time however, seemed to be different. It appeared to be separate from space, and to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to be someone to set the trains going. Einstein's General Theory of Relativity unified time and space as spacetime, but time was still different from space and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on forever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole.

Link

Isn't the above saying what numerous others are trying to get through to you here?

dt writes:

Or perhaps you are committing the same logical fallacy that PaulK is committing?

Which logical fallacy would that be?

Is it a logical fallacy of refuse to assume that magical gnomes accidentally created the universe with a pixie dust spillage? Is it a logical fallacy to refuse to treat this proposition as some sort of 50/50 probability in the way that you seem to be suggesting towards your "binary" designer/creator argument in Message 84?

dt writes:

What word would you suggest I use to describe events in this timeless state "prior" to the big bang?

If we are going to consider colliding branes or timeless creators we need a basis for doing so don't we? Otherwise we are back to gnomes and pixie dust and the imaginations of men aren't we?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:08 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by designtheorist, posted 11-28-2011 1:32 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
18NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018