Problems with both Creationism and Evolution

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:
I see the argument - in your view - is (or amounts to) it is logically impossible, therefore God did it.

---

Whew! I was tired of trying to explain myself over and over again

quote:

---

I think a better view is to take time as a dimension - much like the spatial dimensions, as in modern physics.

​

Then we can take some alternative possibilities. For instance in Stephen Hawking's no boundary condition theory the universe itself exists timelessly - time is a component of the universe.

​

Or we can take Linde's "Eternal Inflation" in which our universe is one of many bubbles in a greater, infinite space-time. If we take time as a dimension we can even do away with the necessity to traverse an infinite past. Why should there be any need to do so if time is a dimension and any acausal event may happen at any point on the infinite continuum ?

---

OK so then we just push the question back farther. Where did this meta universe come from?Look, I know I can't PROVE that God did it. I just want to show that it is just as valid and logical to say God created the universe as it is to come up with some mythical uber-universe which we can never prove either. Physics and Math break down at the singularity as someone above pointed out. We can't use physics or math to prove any natural formation of the universe. Basically all we are left with is logic and philosophy. So a supernatural cause is just as valid as it explains the fact of the universe and fits the facts as we do know them. It allows for a possibility of God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->1. Something DID cause the universe to expand.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Not necessarily. Causality breaks down at a singularity. Cause and effect no longer apply. None of our physics and mathematics work at a singularity, so it is very hard to tell what must have happened.

​

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->2. Nothing natural could have because there was no time to act within. and everything was within the singularity, which had no time. Stasis. Unchangable.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Same problem as above really. No one quite knows what happens at a singularity. Also note that 'no time' is not the same as 'time stopped' just as 'no water in the river' is not the same as 'the water in the river stopped flowing.'

​

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->3. God is supernatural, He exists outside of any physical reality, he needs no "Time" to work in. Only such a being could have effected the state of the singularity. Whether he is personal or not, that is for other discussions.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

You are just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge. There is no support for any of this.

​

---

Basically you just said that physics and math break down at the singularity. Therefore all we are left with is logic. Logically the universe could not have happened naturally (see my previous posts for my position on this, so I dont have to go over it all again)Logically my conclusion is that an intelligence outside of time and physicality caused the expansion. Prove me wrong. By implication of your previous statements, anything anyone comes up with (since physics and math cannot help us) is also "just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge" so their theories are no more valid than mine. There is no (can't be any) support for their theories either.My theory fits the evidence and logic of what we know. Beyond that, I have other reasons to believe in God, so that is why I propose that God is the first cause of the universe instead of some undefined made up natural cause that no one can prove or find evidence for.Basically anything you can throw at me can be thrown right back at you.

No, logic is math, so you don't have that, either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by crashfrog:
< !--UB

-->

< !--UE-->Basically you just said that physics and math break down at the singularity. Therefore all we are left with is logic. < !--UB -->

< !--UE-->

​

No, logic is math, so you don't have that, either.

---

Nope, Logic is deductive reasoning, not math. More akin to philosophy.BTW in my message above I said:

quote:

---

Basically anything you can throw at me can be thrown right back at you.

---

I just wanted to say that I did not want to come across as being smug with that comment, I was just trying to lighten things up by pointing out the humor in the situation. Just wanted to clarify that.

quote:

---

Therefore all we are left with is logic.

---

No. Logic breaks at a singularity as well, as it is nothing but a method for analyzing causal relationships. No causality, no logic.

quote:

---

Logically my conclusion is that an intelligence outside of time and physicality caused the expansion.

---

This may be your conclusion, but it isn't logical.

quote:

---

Prove me wrong.

---

I already did.

quote:

---

By implication of your previous statements, anything anyone comes up with (since physics and math cannot help us) is also "just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge" so their theories are no more valid than mine.

---

Current physics and mathematics cannot help. What future discoveries will unravel remains to be seen. A lot of people are working on the problem, and there are some interesting theories though none of them are yet verifiable.

quote:

---

There is no (can't be any) support for their theories either.

---

To claim that there can be no support for a theory means that you know the future. Is this your claim?

quote:

---

My theory fits the evidence and logic of what we know.

---

A thousand things fit the evidence, because there is so little evidence. Essentially, anything that ends in '... and that is what caused the universe' fits the evidence, but that is a far cry from having a sufficiently supported position.

quote:

---

I have other reasons to believe in God

---

Do you now?

quote:

---

so that is why I propose that God is the first cause of the universe instead of some undefined made up natural cause that no one can prove or find evidence for.

---

And you choose instead an undefined un-natural cause lacking proof or even evidence? That makes little sense.

quote:

---

Basically anything you can throw at me can be thrown right back at you.

---

Oh... you can through, but you are missing.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Deductive reasoning is math. Deductive reasoning is an axiomatic system. Axiomatic systems are math. Don't confuse math to just mean "numbers".

Logic is not math. At least traditional logic isn't. It may use math, and mathmatical concepts, but it doesn't have to.see:Page not found – Memoria Press

Your link confuses logic - which is about constructing syllogyms that preserve truth value - with rhetoric, which is the use of language to construct argument.Logic builds statements from basic axioms via transformations that preserve truth value. Math does the same thing. If math and logic do the same thing, then they're the same. There's just no difference between math and logic.Logic isn't about language, it's about symbols. Rhetoric is about language, and is in fact philosophy.On the other hand, you may be referring to informal logic, which we use to debate. I guess I'm referring to formal logic, which is mathematics.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:
< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->Therefore all we are left with is logic.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

No. Logic breaks at a singularity as well, as it is nothing but a method for analyzing causal relationships. No causality, no logic.

---

Hmmm. according to that definition I have to concede that point to you.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->Logically my conclusion is that an intelligence outside of time and physicality caused the expansion.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

This may be your conclusion, but it isn't logical.

---

But then neither is any other conclusion, even by "science"

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->Prove me wrong.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

I already did.

---

Ditto.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->By implication of your previous statements, anything anyone comes up with (since physics and math cannot help us) is also "just making up something to fill in a blank in knowledge" so their theories are no more valid than mine.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Current physics and mathematics cannot help. What future discoveries will unravel remains to be seen. A lot of people are working on the problem, and there are some interesting theories though none of them are yet verifiable.

---

Until then my reasoning is just as valid. If these theories do become verifiable, then I will most likely change my stance.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->There is no (can't be any) support for their theories either.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

To claim that there can be no support for a theory means that you know the future. Is this your claim?

---

Nope. not at all. I was just using your previous statement that everything breaks down beyond the BB, so if nothing can work (logic, math, physics, quantum theory, etc) at the point all physics end including causality.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->My theory fits the evidence and logic of what we know.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

A thousand things fit the evidence, because there is so little evidence. Essentially, anything that ends in '... and that is what caused the universe' fits the evidence, but that is a far cry from having a sufficiently supported position.

---

But you told me that there can be no sufficiently supported position. How can there be "sufficient" if there is so little evidence?

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->I have other reasons to believe in God< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

Do you now?

---

No fair getting sarcastic. I am being civil with you, please be the same with me.

quote:

---

< !--UB

quote:

---

-->

quote:

---

< !--UE-->so that is why I propose that God is the first cause of the universe instead of some undefined made up natural cause that no one can prove or find evidence for.< !--UB

---

-->

---

< !--UE-->

​

And you choose instead an undefined un-natural cause lacking proof or even evidence? That makes little sense.

---

Pretty much, yeah. But I disagree about the "evidence" part.Look,
This thread is getting way off the forum subject of "evolution"I propose this:1. I will concede that it is possible that the universe came into being by a natural process that we do not yet know of, but may learn about in the future.if you will concede:2. There is a possibility that there might be a GOD or some intelligence, who started it all, barring any future proof that he did not.and we can end the debate there and not have to keep going over each and every word and definition over and over again.

What is it with people and this need to convince themselves that the subject of their study has independant physical reality? First Rrhain with mathematics, and now Pixelator needs logic to persist longer than the universe.What's next? A linguist telling me that French isn't just spoken in France, it exists even if there was no one to speak it? That French exists even outside the universe?This stuff is made up, people! It's all in your head!

But what you are retreating to is not the kalam argument at all. It's just "we don't know what did it so it might be God".Well I suppose it escapes all the problems of the kalam argument - the logical problems of the "from eternity" thing and the question I asked at the start. But it isn't much of an argument.Indeed if that is all we have to go on we cannto even say that it is a likely explanation.

I see some confusion here.Our mathematical models of reality break down at the singularity, mathematics itself does not.Likewise any valid description of the singularity must be logically consistent. Logic does not break down in the sense that conclusions cannot be deductively derived from premises about the singularity state - or that contradicitions could be true (however we would have to use very strict logic, since our intuitive ideas about reality are almost certainly not going to apply).This is not to say that logic or mathematics "exist" at the singularity - they are the products of minds, not aspects of reality. They do however exist now, and apply to out models and descriptions.

Obviously a lot of platonists on this forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulK:
But what you are retreating to is not the kalam argument at all. It's just "we don't know what did it so it might be God".

​

Well I suppose it escapes all the problems of the kalam argument - the logical problems of the "from eternity" thing and the question I asked at the start. But it isn't much of an argument.

​

Indeed if that is all we have to go on we cannto even say that it is a likely explanation.

---

Well Paul,
My logic was based on the Kalam argument, and the conclusion I came to was the same, that God did it. I answered your "from eternity" thing, and other objections and pretty much the thread became, tear apart each other's posts word for word, down to arguing what logic and math is (I am not keeping myself out of this accusation).Basically I also agree that Math and logic do not "break down at the singularity", nor does "causality". It seems to be a defensive strategy that some use when they have no explanation to account for the singularity. It sounds good and staves off any possible attack on any position. So John and I started arguing about that, and were getting nowhere.Actual physics as we understand it now may not have functioned in the beginning of the universe, but just because we can't think of a cause is no reason to claim "causality" breaks down, and not proof that there is not an actual cause to the universe.Basically to reiterate the kalam argument:1. Everything that BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe BEGAN to exist.
3. The Universe has a cause.We can take number 1 as true based on all observations we have so far. And we all agree #2 is correct, then #3 must be correct.Your objection was to get debate semantics of "from eternity" which I tried to answer. BTW: here is a link to a defense of the kalam argument http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/k_dfnce.htmSo, then we are left with A>Natural Events B>God C>Something ElseAs John pointed out previously, basically anything that ends in "... and that is how the universe came to be" could be brought forth. For example, A giant orange that existed from eternity bumped into the singularity and caused it to expand.I don't think anyone could seriously entertain that idea and could come up with numerous objections, like where did the orange come from? How did it move without time to move in or something to move it? etc.So between God and Nature.
A> Nature. I argued that any natural cause that existed in eternity (without time) could never act. Stasis.B> God - I argued that it would take a free will choice from an agent who could act from outside the system to start the universe. God is such an agent. He is not bound by physical location or locked into acting within "time"So, my conclusion is that yes I believe God did it, but A> is still open too, depending if we can come up with verifiable theories to support it. But until we do have such verifiable evidence that can exclude B> then B> is the only logical choice remaining that explains how the universe began.So, basically after all that I feel any further arguments about the semantics of logic and causality and eternity, just drags us around in circles.There is no way to exclude "A> Nature" completely so it will always have to remain a possibility determined by any possible future "proofs".But B> God is also a viable explanation, and the only one that can explain how an timeless static singularity could expand in the first place.So I concede that A> is possible, but in my opinion not likely.And in order to conclude the long drawn out debate, I just ask that you all at least concede that B> is possible, even if not likely in YOUR opinion.[This message has been edited by pixelator, 08-22-2003]

Well you gave me AN answer on the "from eternity" point which made the argument nonsensical. And moreover it is one that is contradicted by the website you refer to (and the answer that gives is pretty confused, too).However you misrepresent my argument, because as well as commenting on the "from eternity" point I also raised an important issue which you never addressed. The relationshp between the concept of beginning and a finite past. Even though I referred back to it in my last two posts you are now pretending that I did not say it. Let me put it simply - you cannot define MY strategy by the points YOU choose to address.And since you chose to leave a point which calls the idea that the universe had a beginning into question, you can't turn around and claim that you have successfully defended the argumen even so far as showing that our universe had a cause.Your version of the kalam argument is to set up a logical contradiction and then invoke God to get out of it, rather than looking at more plausible alternatives.