Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 82 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-15-2018 6:21 PM
269 online now:
Coragyps, GDR, JonF, Meddle, ooh-child, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (8 members, 261 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 842,008 Year: 16,831/29,783 Month: 819/1,956 Week: 322/331 Day: 50/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
18Next
Author Topic:   Time and Beginning to Exist
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14488
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 136 of 268 (642561)
11-29-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 3:38 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK
quote:

Okay, this confirms my first criticism of your argument - that you had an unexamined/implicit premise that there was no prior time in any time dimension

That you can call this a criticism just shows that you utterly fail to understand my argument.

The point of my argument was to show that we cannot safely use "everything that begins to exist has a cause" to infer a timeless cause. Since inferring a timeless cause requires no prior time, this is the situation assumed for the sake of the argument.

Looking at precisely the situation I wished to address is NOT an error. If there was a mistake it was believing that you meant what you said.

quote:

But, you see, this is where the logical fallacy of circular reasoning comes in. Let me reformulate your argument for you.

Well let us remember that circular reasoning requires assuming the premise as a conclusion,. Let us remember that the conclusion is that we cannot safely infer a timeless cause via "everything that begins to exist has a cause"

quote:

1. No timeless state or time dimensions exist prior to the beginning of time at the big bang. (This is your unexamined and implicit premise which we will accept for the sake of argument for the time being.)

1) Assume for the sake of argument that there is an absolute beginning of time. (this is required to argue for a genuinely timeless cause from "everything which begins to exist has a cause")

quote:

2. 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. (This premise may be self-contradictory but we will not examine it closely for now.)


Since "coming into existence" requires a prior state of nonexistence this would necessarily be true, given 1.

quote:

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

Which is clearly true.

quote:

4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition which will exclude it from applying to the first moment of time.

More accurately:
4) "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive argument and therefore cannot be trusted in situations significantly differing from our ordinary experience (which is what it is based on)

5) The obvious reason why a cause would be needed for a "beginning" is to bring the thing into existence. There seems to be no other reason which would always apply.

6) Therefore an absolute beginning of time is not only outside of our ordinary experience, it is different in a way that is directly relevant to the inference of a cause from "beginning to exist"

quote:

5. Therefore, one cannot say the big bang supports the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God.

This is purely your addition. I am satisfied with the conclusion that we cannot safely infer a genuinely timeless cause via "everything that begins to exist has a cause".

Since you aren't actually interested in arguing for a genuinely timeless cause (unlike William Lane Craig or kbertsche) I have to ask why you are flailing around desperately trying to find an error in my argument ? Even with all the misrepresentations you didn't manage to actually produce a genuinely circular argument !

quote:

"The first moment of time" means time came into existence. If time itself came into being, then what existed before time?

No, it doesn't necessarily mean that at all. In fact since the argument deals with the case where the beginning is absolute, in the context of the argument time did NOT come into existence because there was no prior state where it did not exist.

Obviously the only way that something could exist BEFORE time is if the "before" refers to a different time dimension. So you have to step out of the case the argument is covering for your question to even make sense.

quote:

If course, if you are willing to postulate the possible existence of a timeless or otherly timed dimension, as you said you were in Message 94, then your argument becomes incoherent.

Well no, considering them doesn't make the argument incoherent. The argument simply doesn't address that possibility because assuming other time dimensions where there IS something prior to the beginning of our time negates the argument for a timeless cause. It's only when you try to add it as a premise to the argument that you get incoherence - but that's because you're doing something stupid.

quote:

Perhaps now you can see why Arthur Eddington said the big bang had "insuperable" problems unless we look at it as "supernatural."

I can see that my argument is being grossly misrepresented by an irrational individual who has great difficulty admitting to his own errors. That does not cause me to think that the Big Bang has problems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:38 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 137 of 268 (642562)
11-29-2011 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Reality of Time
I have an idea. To my knowledge this idea is a wholly subjective idea. It isn't a mathematical objective property of our universe like pi or anything like that. It is just an idea about how I should go about tackling a personal issue.

On my way home my brains are beaten into pizza pulp by a wrench wielding psychopath.

Does the idea still exist? Or did the idea kick the bucket along with my physical brain?

NN writes:

Four is an idea.

Mathematical concepts are arguably objective properties of our universe. You can argue that such things exist in a Platonic sense. But that isn't the same as your assertion that ideas lack a physical basis.

No-one ever had an idea that wasn't borne of a physical brain did they?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 138 of 268 (642563)
11-29-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 6:04 PM


Re: Reality of Time
I accept that thoughts have a physical basis. But ideas do not and they are not a form of thought. Four is an idea. You are capable of thinking about the number four and of communicating the idea to others. But four itself is an immaterial concept.

But the idea only exists because some particular people have the thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:04 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

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


Message 139 of 268 (642564)
11-29-2011 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Reply to Dr Adequate #105
When someone has an unexamined/implicit argument, one has to make it explicit so it can be examined. This is the way logic is done. The fact the argument is incoherent is not of my doing. I'm simply making the argument explicit so PaulK can have a chance to modify it or reject it.

Put plainly: you are making up some nonsense, attributing it to PaulK, and then criticizing your nonsense as though it was his.

This is not "the way that logic is done".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 3:13 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 268 (642565)
11-29-2011 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Dr Adequate
11-29-2011 6:18 PM


Re: Reality of Time
But the idea only exists because some particular people have the thought.

I'm not sure this statement is true, but what if it were? Would it then follow that ideas are material?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:18 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-29-2011 6:57 PM NoNukes has responded

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


Message 141 of 268 (642566)
11-29-2011 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by NoNukes
11-29-2011 6:56 PM


Re: Reality of Time
I'm not sure this statement is true, but what if it were? Would it then follow that ideas are material?

That they have a material basis, yes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 11-29-2011 6:56 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by NoNukes, posted 11-30-2011 6:01 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1663 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 142 of 268 (642568)
11-29-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Reply to Panda
DT writes:

Some things are logically possible and some are not. For example, sometimes people ask "God can make a rock big enough He can't lift it?" That is logically impossible.

And some people also claim that you can have a 'prior' in a different time dimension.

DT writes:

Larni seemed to think it was logically impossible to have a prior in a different time dimension.

It is.

DT writes:

It is not logically impossible as I demonstrated.

Imagination does not demonstrate anything.
I can imagine that god made a rock too big for him to lift - and yet you claim that is logically impossible.
I can imagine many impossible, illogical things, including a spacetime dimension in which you could watch colliding branes creating new universes again and again.

DT writes:

If you postulate the possibility, as PaulK said he is willing to do, then the problem PaulK is trying to solve with this thread goes away.

Positing illogical impossibilities might make the problem go away for you, but not for me.

Your suggestion that being able to imagine something is evidence of it being a logical possibility is patently false.
Imagination should never be used in a logical argument as it is not bound by logic.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 5:43 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(2)
Message 143 of 268 (642570)
11-29-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 5:43 PM


Re: Reply to Larni
I cannot do that but neither can you prove it does not exist

Argument from ignorance. This is a logical fallacy.

You cannot prove that sugarplum fairies do not exist either - our ignorance of their existence does not give them a greater-than-zero probability of actually existing. Nor does this actually shift the burden of proof - if you make the positive claim that an additional time-like dimension exists superimposed over the time dimension we experience, you need to provide evidence for such an assertion, and it is not the responsibility of the skeptic to falsify any little fancy that pops into your brain.

The sole purpose of your "eternal timeless realm" hypothesis seems to be to provide a location for your creator deity - you're making an unsupported assertion so that you can use another unsupported assertion as a "cause" for the Universe. You're not following evidence to draw conclusions, you're drawing conclusions and speculating new possibilities to fit your pre-existing conclusion to real evidence. You compound error onto error in order to justify your belief.

Big Bang cosmology suggests that time has a minimum value, yet that remains one of several potential hypotheses. Time could stretch back eternally, and the Universe could "bounce" from Big Bang to Big Crunch and back again (though current observations show that the Universal expansion is accelerating, not slowing down, suggesting that this hypothesis is unlikely), or perhaps the extreme warping of spacetime from all of the mass-energy of the entire Universe being confined to an infinitesimally tiny amount of space could allow time to warp back in on itself. Or, perhaps, Universes just don't require causes. We haven't, after all, been able to observe and Universe other than our own, and we haven't even been able to do that much fully.

But what really reeks of falsehood in the theistic explanation (including yours) is the lack of an actual explanation.

The assertion that "a god did it" doesn't actually explain anything. Even if we were to prove with absolute certainto tomorrow that yes, an additional timelike dimension does exist, and yes, a "god" did create the Universe...

...we would still have no better idea of how the Universe was created than we do today. Attribution is not the same as explanation. In all of your arguments (and those of theists in general), "Creator" is used as a word that conveys explanation when it does not. It's a placeholder, a variable, an unknown where the explanation is supposed to go.

Once upon a time, a physics teacher performed a little test on her students. She hung a plate of metal next to a radiator. When the students were asked to touch the metal, they noticed that one side was hot and one side was cold...but the side facing the radiator was the cold side. She asked the students to explain this.

They gave numerous hypotheses, essentially along the lines of "because of convection."

But they had no idea what had actually happened. They were using "because of convection" as if it were an actual explanation, when in reality it was just words; they would have said exactly the same thing whether the side of the plate facing the radiator was hot or cold. Their "explanation" was equally able to "explain" each and every possible observation - in other words, it didn't explain anything at all.

In reality, of course, the teacher had allowed the radiator to heat one side of the plate...and then simply turned it backwards before the students arrived.

"Creator" is used in exactly the same way. You believe in your deity and would do so whether physics tell us the Universe had a "beginning" or not. Your conclusion is already written - what you're actually doing is searching for clever arguments to justify that conclusion after the fact - like searching for quotes, sometimes taken out of context, by respected scientists that seem to agree with you, and by focusing on the "plausibility" of a hypothesis as opposed to evidence to support or falsify it. Your "Creator" equally explains any possible observations of the Universe...which means it doesn't actually explain anything at all. It's just a word. There's no mechanism, no reason, no evidence, no sequence of events, just bald assertion, a conclusion written before any evidence was observed followed by filling in the reasoning after the fact.

It is conceivably possible that there exists one or more additional timelike dimensions that intersect and "encapsulate" the entire set of our own Universe's time dimension. It is conceivably possible that something, whether colliding branes or soemthign else (inclusing extra-Universal aliens or a "god") "Caused" our Universe.

But that could still be the case regardless of whether our Universe has a "beginning." Our time dimension could be twisted like a moebius strip with no true beginning or end, and still be encapsulated in a larger timelike dimension. A "Creator" could still be responsible for its existence either way, or in a thousand other hypotheses. Your "explanation" would remain unchanged, either way, equally able to explain each and every possibility.

The only reason you introduce an additional timelike dimension into the debate is to make your "Creator" hypothesis sound more plausible, bypassing the problem of causality in a Universe that seems to have a minimum value of time. But your hypothesis is still not an explanation. It's still not testable - the Universe would look the same to us, either way. Your theology is the sort of useless navel-gazing performed by children when looking up at the clouds and wondering if maybe there is a magical kingdom of animate, sentient teddy bears with joyful emblems sewn on their tummies just on the tops of the clouds - in other words, bare speculation coupled with wishful thinking and a total disregard for the burden of evidence. That you manage to add weight to your arguments with adult concepts like logic, logical fallacies, and quotes from experts, means simply that you've retained your childish thought patterns in your adulthood, not that you've actually added anything of substance to create an argument that is convincing to any but the gullible and those who already believe.

Evidence is the only rational basis for belief. What matters is not what you find to be personally convincing, or what you've been taught since childhood. What matters is the observations that have been made thus far, and which hypotheses are supported more strongly than others. What matters is not what you can't disprove, like an additional timelike dimension or sugarplum fairies, but rather what observations tell us is more likely to be true, like the existence of horses as compared to the existence of the chupacabra or bigfoot.

What matters is evidence.


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 133 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 5:43 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 7:39 PM Rahvin has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 144 of 268 (642571)
11-29-2011 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rahvin
11-29-2011 7:29 PM


Reply to Rahvin
Argument from ignorance. This is a logical fallacy.

It is not an argument from ignorance because it is not my argument. We are discussing PaulK's argument. PaulK could strengthen his argument if he could prove an immaterial realm does not exist. He cannot.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:29 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:47 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 153 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 3:43 AM designtheorist has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 145 of 268 (642572)
11-29-2011 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
11-22-2011 10:21 AM


quote:
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.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is an intuitive idea, notably lacking a rigorous definition of "beginning to exist". We must take it then, to refer to the beginnings of everyday experience. In everyday experience the thing does not exist, the cause operates and then the thing exists. And, intuitively the cause is responsible for the change from the state where the object in question does not exist to a state where it does.

Now consider the case of the first moment of time. For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists. Thus if we take these objects to have a beginning it is one different from the every day beginnings - and in a way that would seem to remove the need for a cause.

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.



I think we're getting a bit sidetracked on this thread. I'd like to get back to the topic of the OP. Let's tackle your question of what it means to "begin to exist". You claim that we lack a rigorous definition of it. I am skeptical of this. I suspect William Lane Craig has provided a rigorous definition, which I will try to hunt down I the next few days. But in the mean time, let's see if we can come up with some descriptions or synonyms on our own.

I suggest that "begin to exist" is roughly synonymous with:
1) "have a finite age"
2) "have a temporal starting-point of its existence"

If this is what it means, there should be no doubt that the universe "began to exist".

Comments? Do we have general agreement so far?


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 11-22-2011 10:21 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:52 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 151 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 11:47 PM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 154 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2011 3:53 AM kbertsche has responded

    
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 146 of 268 (642573)
11-29-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by designtheorist
11-29-2011 7:39 PM


Re: Reply to Rahvin
It is not an argument from ignorance because it is not my argument. We are discussing PaulK's argument. PaulK could strengthen his argument if he could prove an immaterial realm does not exist. He cannot.

So...it's not your argument, but then you use it again saying PaulK cannot prove an "immaterial realm" does not exist.

You are claiming that PaulK's argument is false because he cannot disprove your pet hypothesis, which is in fact an argument from ignorance and an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Any particular reason you ignored the rest? Laziness? Or is cherry-picking individual quotes out of a larger amount of relevant text just a hopeless neurosis of yours?


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 144 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 7:39 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by designtheorist, posted 11-29-2011 11:43 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 147 of 268 (642576)
11-29-2011 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by kbertsche
11-29-2011 7:42 PM


I suggest that "begin to exist" is roughly synonymous with:
1) "have a finite age"
2) "have a temporal starting-point of its existence"

If this is what it means, there should be no doubt that the universe "began to exist".

Comments? Do we have general agreement so far?

"Began to exist" implies a previous coordinate in time where the entity in question did not exist. If time is a like a ray or line segment and the entire Universe is contained only within the coordinates of time, then it is possible for the Universe to have existed at every moment of time and yet for there to be a minimum time coordinate.

If the Universe is a globe and T=0 is the North Pole, does the Universe "begin" at the North Pole, or is the North Pole just the absolute farthest North coordinate on the surface of the globe?


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 145 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 7:42 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by kbertsche, posted 11-29-2011 8:55 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 81 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 148 of 268 (642583)
11-29-2011 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Rahvin
11-29-2011 7:52 PM


quote:
quote:
I suggest that "begin to exist" is roughly synonymous with:
1) "have a finite age"
2) "have a temporal starting-point of its existence"
If this is what it means, there should be no doubt that the universe "began to exist".

Comments? Do we have general agreement so far?


"Began to exist" implies a previous coordinate in time where the entity in question did not exist. If time is a like a ray or line segment and the entire Universe is contained only within the coordinates of time, then it is possible for the Universe to have existed at every moment of time and yet for there to be a minimum time coordinate.



So you would actually deny that the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago?!? If you don't like "begin to exist", how would you prefer to describe the finite age of the universe and its origin in a singularity? Any comments from Cavediver or others actually trained in cosmology?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein

I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:52 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Son Goku, posted 11-30-2011 8:30 AM kbertsche has acknowledged this reply
 Message 159 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2011 9:13 AM kbertsche has responded

    
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1768
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 149 of 268 (642588)
11-29-2011 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by cavediver
11-27-2011 10:13 AM


Cause and effect, in as much as it exists, is a function of the space-time structure of the Universe.

This is the same as saying that causality has nothing to do with bringing things into existence but only rearranges things that already exist. So the causality that we all know and love is completely different than the concept of an originating cause. If the two are not the same thing then why should an originating cause be subject to the constraints of causality. Namely, having some time or place to exist in.

It almost seems logical that the logic should break down along with the maths and definitions. A real tower of Babel perhaps although I don't believe that.

A question regarding your discription of the Dirac sea. What does it matter that it looks the same coming or going? Is there no arrow of time there? If I am so off the mark that I should go and read a book, which book would you recommend?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by cavediver, posted 11-27-2011 10:13 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 150 of 268 (642590)
11-29-2011 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Rahvin
11-29-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Reply to Rahvin
Any particular reason you ignored the rest? Laziness? Or is cherry-picking individual quotes out of a larger amount of relevant text just a hopeless neurosis of yours?

I would have said I was short on time, but if you want to guess laziness I will go with that.

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

I like this quote. I think it mostly true. When you see someone actually change their mind because of new evidence, it is time to look more closely at that evidence. That is the way I feel about Allan Sandage learning the big bang was a unique event. It started him on a journey which resulted him becoming a Christian. Pretty startling evidence for the former atheist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Rahvin, posted 11-29-2011 7:47 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-30-2011 2:41 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018