|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Detecting God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And if you don't want to be criticised then a little more humility might be in order. Don't brag about logic being on your side when all you do is simply assume that you're right. Triumphailism just begs for deflation,
quote: OK.
quote: Let us note that it is definitely false that we need a sufficient cause...
quote: NO. You've just run into the Problem of Induction. Inductive arguments fall short of logical proofs.
quote: Unfortunately our observations apply only to finite space and time. Infinite space would be expected to contain infinite matter and infinite time could certainly accommodate an infinite succession.
quote: False. If time is finite then we do not need to invoke infinite beings.
quote: And that includes the very point you were trying to reject. Thus you admit that you have no observations which let you reject a group that mutually sustain each other in favour of a single self--sustaining entity. So now we've looked and found that you were wrong we can move on from this point.
quote: I don't have time to read up on a lot of cosmology just now, but let me point out that it seems to be taken seriously among cosmologists who would be a lot more familiar with the evidence than either of us. Also, if you want our universe to be really finite and have an infinite past, you actually need what you call the "bubble universe" to be true.
quote: Which refers to death, which as we know is the end of the person. The universe is not a person, nor actually alive so clearly that doesn't apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Jbr writes: Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes.Does this logically mean that something/s always existed in order for something to now exist? Yes. The second statement is false. The causing agent does not have to have always existed, it only needs to have existed at the moment of the cause. Since that statement is false all of the statements that depend on it are also false. On Infinite. Notice that you capitalized "MAN'S FINITE EXISTENCE". You do realize that has Nothing to do with the logical construct you are attempting? Man may well be finite but that has nothing to do with the topic of this universe or infinity. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Me: Have we always observed that something's origin requires there be something to cause that origin? Yes. You: Let us note that it is definitely false that we need a sufficient cause... Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects? Just saying this is false does not make it so. An example of something OBSERVED that did not require a cause by something else is required. That is because you challenged my rejection of mult-universes etc... (based on no observation) stating that the sword swings both ways. Therefore I presented you with an observation to which a refutation "with an observation" is required. I can't respond to anything else in the list that you replied to because the point above is key to following the logic. It would be a waste of our time for me to do so. With the exception of this next comment of yours:
Unfortunately our observations apply only to finite space and time. Again I had stated that I reject your other possibilities based on the lack of observation. In science observation is paramount. Note that my conclusion is acceptable to me because its based on observation with logic together.
I don't have time to read up on a lot of cosmology just now, but let me point out that it seems to be taken seriously among cosmologists who would be a lot more familiar with the evidence than either of us. Well I'm sorry you feel that way Paul. If you are going to reject a whole belief system based on the off chance that some of the other "smart guys" guesses are right, don't you think you should familiarize yourself with it just a little? In your last post you accused me of being not very humble and coming across kind of superior. I am sorry if my demeanor comes off that way. But I gotta ask; say you see a man a few hundred yards away walking with a cane and dark sunglasses towards a huge cliff. If you believe he is blind and about to fall, just what tone should you use when you cry out, "STOP...CLIFF!!!"???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect.
quote: But your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time. (Indeed since space is never entirely empty we know that we cannot validly extend it to infinite space).
quote: Of course I am NOT rejecting an entire worldview on that basis. I am REFUSING to reject a possibility on the grounds that the experts consider it plausible. That is a very different matter.
quote: But you aren't doing any such thing. Instead you are offering flawed arguments, based on material you clearly don't understand. If your intent is to convince then you really really need to provide good arguments instead of trying to pass off your opinions as truths of logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Please note that the key word in my phrase is "observed." I point this out because even though you may think it is theoretically possible for something to originate without a cause, the question is have we only observed caused effects? This is no more than a rehashing of the "god of the gaps" argument. Just because we do not have an answer for an "original cause" it does not compute logically that it must have been a god. There could be many answers other than a god. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect. ...your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time. And "at this point" I find it necessary to clarify exactly what we are both saying here. I am saying that the only things we have with which to formulate conclusions, about the origin of the universe, is what we have observed and experienced. On the other hand you seem to be saying that nothing we have experienced or observed has any baring on the subject, and therefore "anything goes." (Just so long as its not God) "But that's OK because other smart people really support it?" Is that everything in a nut shell?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
Just because we do not have an answer for an "original cause" it does not compute logically that it must have been a god. There could be many answers other than a god. With what has been stated thus far by me, you are exactly right. But I think we don't want to walk before we crawl I am just amazed at the opposition I am receiving at even the notion that something can not logically possibly come from nothing. I mean if whole universes can come from nothing, with absolutely no warning, shouldn't you be worried that you could have a big bang take place in your living room at any moment? There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG! Just kidding you my friend. Seriously (I like Sponge Bob) no seriously though, I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Just being real writes:
Universes do not originate inside other universes. You have a wrong picture of this. They originate on a higher dimensional plane, if you will. You cannot use normal human experience to look at these things, that will throw you off.
I mean if whole universes can come from nothing, with absolutely no warning, shouldn't you be worried that you could have a big bang take place in your living room at any moment? There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG!
This gives off the impression that you think the Big Bang was an explosion. It was not, it was a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.
Just kidding you my friend. Seriously (I like Sponge Bob) no seriously though, I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?
Because we have no reason to think that that is the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No, that's not it. That's not it at all. As you've already admitted your argument doesn't get you to God or anywhere near. And you haven't even gotten to the really difficult parts. If your argument was any good I'd have had no problem accepting it. However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics. for instance you refuse to accept that time could be finite, because your argument requires that past time is infinite. But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps). The fact is that your argument - even the section you've presented here doesn't work. If it did I'd have accepted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9197 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG!
Your ignorance about what the Big Bang Theory actually states comes shining out in this statement. As Huntard explained it was not an explosion. There fore any thoughts and ideas you have about the "Big bang" are not even worth considering. How about you do some reading and get back to us when you ahve a basic concept of what the Theory actually says. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Oni, I'm glad you joined the discussion. Thanks
don't you think tracing everything back to its logical origins will eventually lead you into some very big problems if you try to stick with purely finite causes? Personally I think applying human logic to the orgin of our universe is fallacious. It will inevitably lead to wrong answers, as it has in the past with notions of a geocentric universe and a flat earth. So I'm of the school that the evidence leads to the right answer. Currently in this field of stdy, no such answer has come about that is unanimously agreed upon - who knows if one ever will. But science and physicist will find one, given that one is available.
So for all practical purposes, me and my atoms are very finite. What do you mean by practical? Would it shock you to know that the very atoms that make up your body have been around for possibly billions of years?
Therefore logically we have to conclude that because anything finite exists, something infinite must exist that was the original first cause of the finite.
Maybe, but even that vague statement of finite and infinites doesn't support a conscious celestial entity. To conclude god is this infinite thing you're refering to, you must have a belief in some kind of religion where you can apply their/your concpet of god to the question. I'm confident that many if not all religions could do this. By creating the notion of infinite, and saying that this causes finite things to exist, you have easily found a gap for your god to fill. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
You cannot use normal human experience to look at these things, that will throw you off. And what else is there if we don't?
This gives off the impression that you think the Big Bang was an explosion. It was not, it was a rapid expansion of spacetime itself. Actually I am familiar with both points of view, and I don't accept either, but that's a different topic, and I don't think its really relevant to my point. Does it matter to the rabbit if the fox ran to catch him or just walked really really fast?
Me: I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist? You: Because we have no reason to think that that is the case. Not if your going to discount observation and normal logic... then no we don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3963 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics. Well come on with it then Paul, lets here the major holes with an observation based explanation that refutes it. I can take criticism if its backed by something more than just saying "No, No, No," and wagging your finger.
But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps). So your saying that both time being infinite or finite are wrong? Interesting. So are they wrong at the same time or is one only wrong at a time depending on which suits your argument? What if I were to suggest that in reality time itself is nothing but an illusion invented by humans? Its nothing. Time does not really exist. It is a man made invention to measure passage of space between events. You can go to china, but you can’t go to a second ago. That second was merely our way of expressing the passing of an event. We have chosen to express it with man made increments called seconds. We can not travel back and view past events as they are happening, because they are not happening, but rather have already happened. We may be able to record current events and view a video recording of that event in the future, and we may feel like we are in the past, but actually being there when it happened is not possible. Looking deeper into this thing that we call time, one might say that matter is required in order for there to even be time. Some type of matter is necessary with which to judge the passing of time. For example, we humans have patterned our entire concept of time with regards to the earth’s movement, both rotationally, and also with its solar orbit. We call a day, the amount of time it takes for the earth to make a complete turn on its axis. And likewise a year is the amount of time it takes for the earth to make one complete orbit around the sun. Our hours minutes and seconds are also based completely on the movement of the earth. So if you were somewhere out in the deep void of space where no planets or stars existed, nothing but deep blackness, then what would you base the passing of time on? There would be nothing but you to base it on. Maybe you would base it on the number of your own inhales. You might call 17,280 inhales, one day. But then again you’re still basing time on the existence of matter. In this case you are that matter. Therefore, technically, in a place where absolutely no matter exists, there would be no passing of time. Our bodies wear out and we see other finite material around us breaking down and we have a tenancy to equate these things with the passing of time, but in truth the measure of time that we invented has nothing to do with their break down. Time is only an illusion that has no meaning to someone who has no expiration date. Therefore you are in a way right, time is neither finite nor infinite. That's because it is merely a man made illusion. So when I say, "What existed before the universe?" I am talking about existence of something that time has no meaning to. If matter did not exist then there was no time, but that does not mean an infinite entity or entities could not be self existent. Time has no relevance to the argument. The relevant point is that finite matter now exists and no observations ever made can explain its existence without invoking an infinite source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: What's wrong with the ones I've already pointed out ? For instance your assumption that the universe has a finite future, when in fact the matter is not settled and last I heard it leans the other way ? Or how about the illogic in your argument that since we, as finite creatures observing a finite portion of space and time can only see a finite number of entities we should assume that the total number of entities that have ever existed is also finite, even given infinite time ? You cannot validly assume that our limitations limit reality. And in fact we do have observations that would suggest otherwise. We know that the vacuum is not empty. Instead it is a sea of particles flickering in and out of existence. If we extend this observation into infinite time, does it not follow that there must have been an infinite number of finite entities ?
quote: I am saying disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as rejecting God. Despite your attempts to paint it that way. We can add that in fact that we do not know if time is finite or infinite - so relying on either would be a fault in your argument. We can further add that neither option in fact offers any help to your argument.
quote: Well the first thing I would ask you is how is this relevant ? How does it help your argument ? If time does not really exist then nothing can be temporally infinite, yet your whole argument rests on asserting that there must be a temporally infinite being. You cannot have a temporally infinite being unless time is both real and infinite.
quote: Well to point out the holes in the reasoning here: 1) You are arguing now that time is finite, at least in the pastward direction. But an infinite past was the only aspect of infinity that you have argued FOR. So now we have no need to invoke an infinite being in any respect. 2) Your argument that time depends on matter is a mere assertion (and in fact false, since matter did not exist in the very earliest stages of the universe). It is far better to treat time as a dimension (like length and width) as physics does. Or alternatively we can relate time to change. You can argue that a completely unchanging entity is "timeless" in some sense. However, by definition such an entity can do nothing (since doing anything would be a change). That doesn't seem to offer any help to you, either. 3) You have offered no sound argument for an infinite source and therefore you cannot rule out a finite source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2323 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Just being real writes:
The counterintuitive math that describes the real processes.
And what else is there if we don't? Actually I am familiar with both points of view, and I don't accept either, but that's a different topic, and I don't think its really relevant to my point.
There are no "both points of view", in physics it is only ever a rapid expansion of spacetime. It is relevant as to show that you know what you are talking about. The fact you "don't accpet" it goes a long way to question your knowledge on this subject, and therefore your authority in proclaiming things that are linked to it.
Does it matter to the rabbit if the fox ran to catch him or just walked really really fast?
No, but for the math to be accurate it does matter whether it was an explosion (Which ususally occurs within spacetime) or a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.
Not if your going to discount observation and normal logic... then no we don't
Which is exactly what one should do when dealing with physics like this.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024