Science and Theology, the sequel

08/24/2011 06:19:10 PM · #2201

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Also, it seems like you are stretching the analogy of the geometric lines a little too far. I mean them as abstract representations rather than any real representation of reality.

If your analogy doesn't hold up in reality, then you only meant imaginary things. Priceless!

Shannon, you ignorant slut.

I obviously mean not to think of the lines as literal (as in spacetime), but figurative (as in "has a beginning").

Dolt.

08/24/2011 06:19:41 PM · #2202

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Actually, that's incorrect. Which is longer, a line that stretches infinitely in one direction or in both? ;)

Irrelevant. Which allows for a creator, a universe that began or one that existed all along?

08/24/2011 06:23:49 PM · #2203

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I obviously mean not to think of the lines as literal (as in spacetime), but figurative (as in "has a beginning").

Describe a figurative beginning point without a reference to space/time, hotshot. You wouldn't be so frustrated if your arguments were sound.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 18:24:13.

08/24/2011 06:25:56 PM · #2204

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually, that's incorrect. Which is longer, a line that stretches infinitely in one direction or in both? ;)

Irrelevant. Which allows for a creator, a universe that began or one that existed all along?

I'll answer that with a quote from Helge's "Cosmology and Controversy". Page 259.

"The atheist Bonner rejected Big-Bang theory for largely the same reason Hoyle did; among these, it lent support to divine creation. 'The underlying motive is, of course, to bring God in as a creator,' Bonner stated. 'It seems like the opportunity Christian theology has been waiting for ever since science began to depose religion from the minds of rational men in the seventeenth century.'"

I guess they felt a universe that existed all along was much more conducive to not having a Creator. Check.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 18:26:58.

08/24/2011 06:28:58 PM · #2205

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I obviously mean not to think of the lines as literal (as in spacetime), but figurative (as in "has a beginning").

Describe a figurative beginning point without a reference to space/time, hotshot. You wouldn't be so frustrated if your arguments were sound.

The ray, obviously. It describes a beginning in space, but makes no reference to time. When you draw a ray on a piece of paper like so: o---------> there is no reference to time. It isn't expanding at a certain rate per second, it just is. Duh.

" The ray is all the points in the line segment between A and B together with all points, C, on the line through A and B such that the points appear on the line in the order A, B, C."

No time. Just space.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 18:32:10.

08/24/2011 06:36:42 PM · #2206

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I guess they felt a universe that existed all along was much more conducive to not having a Creator.

Yep, no beginning = no creation. If spacetime is truly infinite (without a starting point), then you've lost the gap you're trying to hammer a Prime Mover into.

08/24/2011 06:41:44 PM · #2207

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I guess they felt a universe that existed all along was much more conducive to not having a Creator.

Yep, no beginning = no creation. If spacetime is truly infinite (without a starting point), then you've lost the gap you're trying to hammer a Prime Mover into.

"infinite" and "without a starting point" are not synonymous... A ray is infinite, but it definitely has a starting point. Keep at it. You'll get there.

08/24/2011 06:42:20 PM · #2208

Originally posted by scalvert:

I'll go one better. "1 is the beginning of the list of all positive integers." No space. No time.

08/24/2011 06:46:45 PM · #2209

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No time. Just space.

Space and time are both inherent dimensions of space-time.

08/24/2011 06:49:59 PM · #2210

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No time. Just space.

Space and time are both inherent dimensions of space-time.

But we're not talking about "spacetime" on a ray are we? I actually had that on the original post, but I thought it so obvious I removed it as I thought I was being insulting. We are merely talking about mathematical points. But if you can't wrap your mind around that one, use the "1 is the beginning of the list of positive integers." A cleaner example.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 18:50:44.

08/24/2011 07:34:24 PM · #2211

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We are merely talking about mathematical points.

Your mathematical ray exists only as an imaginary concept that, um.. you assert never existed at any point in time. Woo. Let's say we allow that. Can I then make a valid real-world analogy based on the imaginary concept of a time machine? Probably not. "But wait," you protest, "we use imaginary mathematical concepts all the time to model the real world!" Yep, speculation. Could be right, could be wrong... until some real evidence is found to support the conclusion.

Or maybe we can go with "1 is the beginning of the list of positive integers." That must mean that something had to cause 1, right? Well, no, actually... 1 is an arbitrary value that doesn't really exist. We could just as well say 46 is the beginning of the list of positive integers greater than 45. Hmm... let's try pretending 1 IS a real thing and see if that helps. As the Prime Mover, we start with nothing and create 1 and then... uh, oh... start, create... there's that pesky sequence thing again and there's no time in existence for progression, nor anything to create from.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

08/24/2011 07:46:17 PM · #2212

The whole point of all the analogies is to show that if a list or ray or whatever has a beginning, then one member of the set is unique and that having a unique member is necessary. That's all the analogies point out. It's an obvious truth easily grasped by the geometric ray or the list of positive integers. Once you've figured this out you can leave the analogies behind.

WOOT!

There goes the whistle. Do you recall the Looney Tunes with Ralph, the wolf and Sam, the sheepdog who fight tooth and nail until the whistle goes off and then they part with a "'Night Ralph. 'Night Sam"? That cartoon makes me chuckle.

Good Night, Ralph.

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 19:49:00.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

08/24/2011 08:46:05 PM · #2213

Just to clarify one potential misapprehension, the big bang theory does not preclude the existence of previous universes (and indeed we may be able to analyse them to a degree): Before the Big Bang, BBC

08/24/2011 09:27:56 PM · #2214

Originally posted by Matthew:

Quite true. The analysis part is a bit off, but you bring up a valid point. It doesn't really further the conversation, but it is a valid possibility.

I do love this quote which may come as a shock to our Mr. Shannon and Mr. Paul...

"The philosophical question that's sensible to ask is 'what came before the Big Bang?'; and what they're striving for here is to do away with that 'there's nothing before' answer by making it cyclical."

Message edited by author 2011-08-24 21:32:28.

08/25/2011 11:36:04 AM · #2215

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The whole point of all the analogies is to show that if a list or ray or whatever has a beginning, then one member of the set is unique and that having a unique member is necessary.

Sure, and in each of your imaginary cases, you describe an arbitrarily defined point as the beginning on an otherwise infinite continuum of possibilities (we can define a ray to begin anywhere else for no particular reason and we could include 0, -1, -2 etc. without the arbitrary limit of positive integers). By the same token, we can say, "What's north of the north pole?" Nothing, of course, it's an arbitrary limit imposed by the definition itself rather than practical reality where you can otherwise continue on past the north pole. It's a straw man. Time, however, wouldn't be an arbitrary continuum, and imagining its beginning comes with serious implications. If this inherent property of space-time had a beginning, as the concept of a prime mover requires, then the practical reality of no progression of time effectively eliminates any possibility of creation. Not only that, but no act could ever cause the first action since that would then make the causal event the first action.

Good night, Sam. Sorry about the anvil thing, but you brought the TNT explosion on yourself. [snuffs out still-smoldering flame in your hair]

08/25/2011 12:26:37 PM · #2216

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The whole point of all the analogies is to show that if a list or ray or whatever has a beginning, then one member of the set is unique and that having a unique member is necessary.

Sure, and in each of your imaginary cases, you describe an arbitrarily defined point as the beginning on an otherwise infinite continuum of possibilities (we can define a ray to begin anywhere else for no particular reason and we could include 0, -1, -2 etc. without the arbitrary limit of positive integers).

This is irrelevent. The important point is there is a unique member even in an arbitrary set. The set may seem arbitrary ("all positive integers greater than 43") or it may not ("all points in time after t=0"). It doesn't matter. There is still a unique member and that is important to realize.

This all goes back to your declaring Craig's proposition fell victim to the exclusion fallacy. If you pause and actually look, you will see it does not. You said an exclusion can be valid if it has a rational grounding. Here it is. Every set that acts like a ray has a unique member. Logic. Grounding. It doesn't mean reality must conform to this ray-like idea; perhaps it doesn't. But it does mean that proposition #1 is perfectly reasonable and rational because reality could look like this.

Craig goes on to try to point out that this unique member "just is". If I ask you where the singularity came from, you would answer "nowhere, it just is" (or something to that effect). If you ask me where God came from, I give you the same answer. It seems we are at an impasse until we ask the question, "what quality, law or property of the natural world (the common definition, not yours), would cause us to a priori assume the universe has a unique moment in time (called t=0) that has no moment before it (called t' where t'because they were used to the idea of a static, eternal universe where every moment in time has a moment before.

Message edited by author 2011-08-25 12:27:41.

08/25/2011 12:52:56 PM · #2217

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I ask you where the singularity came from, you would answer "nowhere, it just is" (or something to that effect). If you ask me where God came from, I give you the same answer.

The difference is that you assume it's NOT possible for the universe to just exist without a cause, but it IS possible for a god to just exist without cause. Hence, the special pleading exception. You could replace "god" with "genie" in any of your prime mover claims and it wouldn't be any more irrational.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"what quality, law or property of the natural world, would cause us to a priori assume the universe has a unique moment in time (called t=0) that has no moment before it (called t' where t'

Time is an inherent property of space-time (ie- the universe). If there's no universe, then time wouldn't exist for a "moment before" to transpire. You've eliminated the very property of the natural world required for the assertion to be possible.

08/25/2011 01:12:48 PM · #2218

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

they were used to the idea of a static, eternal universe where every moment in time has a moment before.

Every moment in time has a moment before, precisely because it's in time. No time = no possibility of before. Absent time, when would "before" have occurred? It's like trying to imagine one inch before the first distance or gram before before the first weight. The cosmological argument proposes that some thing must have created the first thing, which is utterly absurd since that thing then becomes the first thing.

08/25/2011 01:13:45 PM · #2219

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I ask you where the singularity came from, you would answer "nowhere, it just is" (or something to that effect). If you ask me where God came from, I give you the same answer.

The difference is that you assume it's NOT possible for the universe to just exist without a cause, but it IS possible for a god to just exist without cause. Hence, the special pleading exception. You could replace "god" with "genie" in any of your prime mover claims and it wouldn't be any more irrational.

It isn't special pleading no matter how many times you claim it is. If it makes you feel better, we can ask "does it make sense from what we know about matter and energy for there to be a t=0? Should we expect this?" If the answer is "no" then we look for something else and we can label that "god" or "multiverse" or whatever but whatever it is, we know what it ISN'T, it isn't part of our universe.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"what quality, law or property of the natural world, would cause us to a priori assume the universe has a unique moment in time (called t=0) that has no moment before it (called t' where t'

Originally posted by Shannon:

You miss the question. WHY would we expect the universe to have a t=0? Why not expect the universe to just always be in the state we find it (every t has a t-1). Your naturalistic theories need to account for this. If you can't, we start looking for other ideas.

Message edited by author 2011-08-25 13:21:37.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

08/25/2011 01:16:24 PM · #2220

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

"does it make sense from what we know about matter and energy for there to be a t=0? Should we expect this?" If the answer is "no" then we look for something else and we can label that "god" or "multiverse" or whatever

If the answer is no, then time (and therefore the universe) has always existed. No reason to invoke god.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

08/25/2011 01:16:45 PM · #2221

You guys really need to get a room. Maybe with a boxing ring and a ref inside it. ;D

08/25/2011 01:26:39 PM · #2222

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"does it make sense from what we know about matter and energy for there to be a t=0? Should we expect this?" If the answer is "no" then we look for something else and we can label that "god" or "multiverse" or whatever

If the answer is no, then time (and therefore the universe) has always existed. No reason to invoke god.

BUT, there is a t=0 and that point acts differently than all other points of time. How and why do natural laws, which are supposed to be the same over all points of spacetime, act differently at t=0? THAT is the nut that needs cracking. It is so difficult to crack, in fact, that some scientists have resorted to the multiverse which is extreme stuff for a scientist (seeing as it's really no different than an unintelligent, impersonal god on a scientific level). If you think there is no question that needs answering then either a) they are futilly wasting research dollars because if they'd just talk to you they'd see their question doesn't need an answer or b) you don't get it. I'll give you one guess as to which I think is the correct option... ;)

08/25/2011 02:39:29 PM · #2223

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

BUT, there is a t=0 and that point acts differently than all other points of time.

If t=0 there is no way to progress to t=1, therefore t cannot = 0. Let's play imaginary chess... you get to make the first move. If you can, then you prove time already exists and no prime mover is necessary. If you can't, then you prove a prime mover is incapable of achieving its supposed purpose. Go.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

some scientists have resorted to the multiverse... either a) they are futilly wasting research dollars because if they'd just talk to you they'd see their question doesn't need an answer or b) you don't get it.

Your a&b are a false dichotomy. c) Those scientists can be incorrect (see cold fusion). Shall we declare that all the scientists who don't buy the idea of a multiverse also don't get it on the mere presumption that there must be something to it if people think it's worth investigating? After all, scientists who investigate ghosts or telekenesis can't possibly be wasting research dollars. :-o

Message edited by author 2011-08-25 14:40:02.

08/25/2011 03:29:12 PM · #2224

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BUT, there is a t=0 and that point acts differently than all other points of time.

If t=0 there is no way to progress to t=1, therefore t cannot = 0. Let's play imaginary chess... you get to make the first move. If you can, then you prove time already exists and no prime mover is necessary. If you can't, then you prove a prime mover is incapable of achieving its supposed purpose. Go.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
some scientists have resorted to the multiverse... either a) they are futilly wasting research dollars because if they'd just talk to you they'd see their question doesn't need an answer or b) you don't get it.

Your a&b are a false dichotomy. c) Those scientists can be incorrect (see cold fusion). Shall we declare that all the scientists who don't buy the idea of a multiverse also don't get it on the mere presumption that there must be something to it if people think it's worth investigating? After all, scientists who investigate ghosts or telekenesis can't possibly be wasting research dollars. :-o

And yet, all our current theories include a t=0. I know. It's a tough nut. Read "Cosmology and Controversy". It's interesting. Read Brian Greene. Also interesting.

I wasn't saying these scientists are necessarily right, just that they understand that the question is worth asking and is not obviously nonsensical. See the quote from Matthew's article: "The philosophical question that's sensible to ask is 'what came before the Big Bang?'; and what they're striving for here is to do away with that 'there's nothing before' answer by making it cyclical."