Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

That must have been you. I'm a big cause and effect fan.



Sounds a lot like a god.



LOL.

The Jury has left the building.

 

[1robin]

LOL.

Are you an actual Satanist or do you just empathize with ill-fated rebellions?

Not sure if you were being satirical when you schluffed off necessary causation as the 'worst' philosophical argument ever and proceeded to cite (the often debunked) Kalams cosmological argument as solid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were.

Necessary causation does not apply to uncaused beings or things. You might as well tell me what is true of married bachelors or square circles. A God who begins to exist is not the God under question.

Kalam is simply one version of an argument so strong it is still undefeated after at least 5000 years of scrutiny. I used a generic cause and effect argument and Leibnitz's explanatory argument. You have yet to dent either.

If not, I invoke Occam's Razor and am taking it back a step to 'the universe itself has always existed, thus never began to exist'.

Why not? That is what Einstein did, wait a minute, it was also what he called his greatest professional mistake.

1. Actual natural infinites are impossible.
2. Infinite causal regressions are impossible.
3. If past events are infinite and occur in time how did we reach the current event?
4. Occam stated to not multiply entities beyond necessity. You did the exact opposite, you multiplied them by infinity.


I will let an non-theist cosmologist tell you what the universe actually is. Next to the BBT the BGVT is the most accepted cosmological model in history and it confirms the BBT.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelli...-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

Why go further than that?

Further than the infinity you invented?

 

[Polymath257]

1. Actual natural infinites are impossible.

Why would that be the case? I would bet spatial and temporal infinity are possible.

2. Infinite causal regressions are impossible.

Why would that be the case? They seem quite natural.

3. If past events are infinite and occur in time how did we reach the current event?

Because there was no start. At all times, there is an infinite amount in the past.

4. Occam stated to not multiply entities beyond necessity. You did the exact opposite, you multiplied them by infinity.

But by necessity of the math.

 

[1robin]

How do you know the universe began to exist? Why is it that everything that begins to exist must have a cause? For that matter, what does it mean to be a cause?

So you posit other universes but a single finite universe (the only one we know exist) is just a bridge too far for you. I now pronounce my prediction about double standards confirmed.

However I am actually wanting to see how you responded to something further in so I will keep going for now.

No one has certainty as to pretty much anything except that we think but the universes beginning to exist is among the most reliable. The two most accepted cosmological models include a finite universe. The BBT and the BGVT.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
https://uncommondescent.com/intelli...-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/

For example, quantum fluctuations begin to exist, but are not caused. So your initial assumption is invalid.

This will be the last time I respond to anything from you about theoretical science until you show me some credentials demonstrating your competence in it.

An actual natural infinite is impossible. Your simply assuming that the indeterminate half of the theories about how the quantum works are the ones that are true. Where is your evidence? Declarations are not arguments. Where did the space come from to have quantum fluctuations in? All things tend to remain at rest unless acted upon. Where is your prime mover? Are your fluctuations in space time? If so, where did it come from?

You assume there must be a cause. That hasn't been established. And 'sufficient' in what sense? Through the action of a law of physics?

There is no known exception to an effect that lacks a cause. It is so reliable science assumes it is universal. Science is actually based upon its universality. Sufficient in that whatever created space time must be independent of space time, whatever created matter must be immaterial, whatever created information must be intelligent, whatever chose to create must be personal, etc......

Why do you assume that only God has an explanation 'internal to itself' (whatever that means)? Why is it that the universe could not have such an explanation?

Because Yahweh is defined as a necessary being, and necessary beings are by definition non-contingent. Nature is contingent and is not necessary. Look up modal logic.

Next, why do you assume only *one thing* has an explanation internal to itself and not many things (say, each subatomic particle)?

You just repeated the same question above and threw in a quantum context because that is apparently your primary tactic. I am not going to consider you competent in Quantum theory until you demonstrate I should.

 

[1robin]

People have different definitions for "evidence". Mine tends to be quite broad. It recognizes evidence for gods - in a sense - but also recognizes just as much evidence against gods, if not more.

I also recognize evidence for gods that are incompatible with Christianity.

If that is true then how on Earth are you going to be able to select the correct worldview before the end of the game?

 

[1robin]

The basics of quantum theory are very well known by now. it is a non-local, probabilistic theory that obtains its probabilities as projection operators on a Hilbert space. It is possible to formulate it as either the vectors in Hilbert space changing or the operators changing (they have the same predictions and are completely equivalent descriptions---like Laplace and Hamiltonian descriptions of classical dynamics).

You should have led with this kind of stuff instead of trumpeting the word "quantum" as the answer to every question. I recognize some of the above so I will give you probationary credibility for now. I am not experienced in quantum mathematics so I am not sure how I am going to go about evaluating your claims.

Mostly because the concept of a God is too vague to be countered. Which of several possible definitions do you want to use? First cause? Creator? Morality giver?

Those would all be true, add in all great making properties and you have a very specific being. Aquinas said the only way a finite mind could comprehend an infinite being would be to define him by what he isn't. He isn't material, he does not lack knowledge, he isn't bound by time, he is not missing at any location, he isn't logically incoherent, etc.....

Well, because math is the language Physics is how it is used to understand reality. But, again, the basic issue is what a good test for the existence of a deity would look like. What test would convince you, if it went counter to your expectations, that no deity exists? Until *that* question is answered, no progress on this issue can be had.

Why are you defending math? My question was why is 100% of the "supposedly" scientific evidence against God's existence to be found only in highly theoretical science. IOW why is it only in string theory, the quantum, or multiverses, instead of gravity or Boolean algebra that the nail to God's coffin may be found?

I strongly disagree. We have an embarrassment of bad arguments, that is for sure.

Then why are 78% of Nobel Laureates Christian and much of the rest men of faith? When Newton discovered physical laws he didn't say well now we don't need God, he said it was beautiful to see the elegance in what God had created. Why did the modern scientific revolution happen exclusively in the Christian west? Why as science has advanced has Christianity not shrunken?

I have a PhD in math (Abstract Harmonic Analysis and Functional Analysis primarily). I have taken the PhD classes and qualifying exams in physics. That included exams on QM, EM, and Stat Mech.



What do you mean by competent? Able to solve and interpret the Schrodinger equation? Or do you want a full knowledge of string theory also? The first is pretty common. The other much less so.

There are intermediate stages, of course. Ability to solve the Schrodinger equation and to use the representations of the rotation group to find forbidden transitions? Still reasonably common.

Which two degrees do you have in math?

You have demonstrated your mathematics credentials are significantly better than mine. I have an AS, a BS, and am a senior in secondary mathematics education, I am also a senior in electrical engineering but I do not plan to go any further in engineering beyond my current job. However I have no real aptitude for math, I do not even like doing it, I discovered way too late that my passion is philosophy.

Now that we have established your ability in mathematics supersedes my own try and dumb down your quantum claims, so I can evaluate them sufficiently.

 

[1robin]

Why would that be the case? I would bet spatial and temporal infinity are possible.

According to BB cosmology space is an expanding bubble, and is finite in duration. So no matter how long space expands it will still be finite. If by temporal you mean duration then lets pick seconds as our units. How could an infinite regress of seconds be traversed to get to this second? You can't span an infinite gap. You mentioned Hilbert, if you look up his Hotel paradox I believe it proves why there can't be an actual natural infinite. Infinity only exists as an idea (an abstract), as you ought to know well infinities' roll in mathematics is usually as what a function can't be. As soon as you take the infinite out of the abstract it turns to nothing.

Lets say there exists an infinite number of coins randomly laying around. If we took away the ones that were heads up they would number infinity, if we counted the number of tail they would number infinity. So we would get infinity - infinity = infinity. Also, if we took away 3 coins we would have infinity so that infinity - 3 = infinity. That wasn't very helpful.

Why would that be the case? They seem quite natural.

Ok, lets consider past events in time. How could the universe have completed an infinite cause and effect loops to arrive at this event? Again nothing can span an infinite gap.

Because there was no start. At all times, there is an infinite amount in the past.

Are you talking about tens less time?

But by necessity of the math.

What math? Any universe on average expanding must be finite. Even if you throw in some imaginary oscillating models it just kicks the can down the road. If you actually like math and cosmology you should read the entire paper that contained the quote from Vilenkin I linked to.

 

[Polymath257]

You should have led with this kind of stuff instead of trumpeting the word "quantum" as the answer to every question. I recognize some of the above so I will give you probationary credibility for now. I am not experienced in quantum mathematics so I am not sure how I am going to go about evaluating your claims.

Well, QM regards most things as probability waves--these are (initially--later they can be vector valued) complex valued functions that satisfy a certain partial differential equation (Schrodinger's Equation). To find the probability of finding a 'particle' in a given region, you integrate the absolute square of the solution to that PDE over that region. Other 'observables' are described via operators on that same function. So momentum is a scaled version of the derivative (in three dimensions, the gradient).

Those would all be true, add in all great making properties and you have a very specific being. Aquinas said the only way a finite mind could comprehend an infinite being would be to define him by what he isn't. He isn't material, he does not lack knowledge, he isn't bound by time, he is not missing at any location, he isn't logically incoherent, etc.....

Well, the question os existence and uniqueness immediately comes up. For example, why would we expect a creator to also be a morality giver? Why would we expect a first cause to be a creator? Why are we not defining three different things here and not just one? And *that* is even assuming the concepts themselves are well-defined (which I don't think they are).

As for 'negative theology', the difficulty is that this means there is no way to even test the consistency, let alone the actual existence of such a thing. How do you know all those negative properties don't exclude everything that actually exists?

Why are you defending math? My question was why is 100% of the "supposedly" scientific evidence against God's existence to be found only in highly theoretical science. IOW why is it only in string theory, the quantum, or multiverses, instead of gravity or Boolean algebra that the nail to God's coffin may be found?

Again. Boolean algebra is a language. It says nothing about the real world. To find out something about the real world, we have to *look* and *test*. Any non-testable view is no better than meaningless.

And, again, the Biblical account *was* shown wrong long before the rise of string theory. There has been a rear-guard action for the last 200 years in Christian theology.

Then why are 78% of Nobel Laureates Christian and much of the rest men of faith? When Newton discovered physical laws he didn't say well now we don't need God, he said it was beautiful to see the elegance in what God had created. Why did the modern scientific revolution happen exclusively in the Christian west? Why as science has advanced has Christianity not shrunken?

We can go into the historical aspects of this and I would agree that the Christian viewpoint that the universe is rational and can be understood by humans was a significant aspect. it was seen in other cultures earlier, but it faded (partly because of very early Christianity, mind you).

I would also agree that certain religious viewpoints are worse than others: Judaism seems to be quite good and Islam seems to be quite bad at promoting science.

I think you would find that Christianity *has* fallen back significantly over the last 300 years due, in part, to the advancement of science. The answers supplied by religion at one point are now supplied by science. Also, and this is an unfortunate fact, education has declined badly in the US and that has correlated with a rise of fundamentalist Christianity.

Newton was at the transition between medieval and modern viewpoints (and partially responsible for the shift), but he had a mystical side that was definitely not scientific, even by the standards of his time.

Now that we have established your ability in mathematics supersedes my own try and dumb down your quantum claims, so I can evaluate them sufficiently.

Did I manage enough? If not, I can pull back a bit more.

 

[Polymath257]

According to BB cosmology space is an expanding bubble, and is finite in duration.

This is incorrect.

First, space is NOT an expanding bubble. Spacetime is a four dimensional manifold with a metric where the spatial cross sections increase in distances over time.

It is possible for the spatial aspect to be finite or infinite.

Next, the classical BB ideas were based on just General relativity, which has, by necessity, singularities in the solutions of its PDEs. This is part of what lead to the issue of finite duration: in that formulation, the time axis cannot be extended back infinitely (similar to the way the latitude lines on the surface of the globe can't be extended past the poles).

However, general relativity is KNOWN to not include important effects from quantum mechanics. When those are incorporated into the equations, there are several possibilities.

One is that time remains finite into the past. Most quantum gravity theories do not do this, though.

One is that there was a previous contraction phase before the BB expansion phase. Time in these goes infinitely into the past.

And one is that there is a multiverse where smaller, causality closed universes split off, one of which is ours.

So no matter how long space expands it will still be finite. If by temporal you mean duration then lets pick seconds as our units. How could an infinite regress of seconds be traversed to get to this second? You can't span an infinite gap.

No need to span an infinite gap. The negative integers still exist even though there is not a first one.

Since you are wrong about the 'bubble', you are also wrong about the finiteness of space. Current evidence is for a flat space, which would be infinite.

You mentioned Hilbert, if you look up his Hotel paradox I believe it proves why there can't be an actual natural infinite. Infinity only exists as an idea (an abstract), as you ought to know well infinities' roll in mathematics is usually as what a function can't be. As soon as you take the infinite out of the abstract it turns to nothing.

And exactly what do you consider to the the contradiction (as opposed to mere paradox) in Hilbert's Hotel? I see nothing about it that says there can't be an actual infinite regression.

Lets say there exists an infinite number of coins randomly laying around. If we took away the ones that were heads up they would number infinity, if we counted the number of tail they would number infinity. So we would get infinity - infinity = infinity. Also, if we took away 3 coins we would have infinity so that infinity - 3 = infinity. That wasn't very helpful.

No, The point of this is that subtraction of infinities is not defined. That arithmetic operation is the issue. It works differently for infinite sets than it does for finite ones. That shouldn't be a surprise, though. It certainly isn't a contradiction.

Ok, lets consider past events in time. How could the universe have completed an infinite cause and effect loops to arrive at this event? Again nothing can span an infinite gap.

You are assuming it has a start, then completed an infinite number of cycles, then reached the present. Your mistake is assuming there was a start. For any negative integer, there is an infinite number of negative integers prior. Nothing is traversing ALL of the negative integers, and there is a finite distance between any two.

So?

What math? Any universe on average expanding must be finite.

Why would you assume that? it is *one* of the possibilities, but far from the only one.

Even if you throw in some imaginary oscillating models it just kicks the can down the road. If you actually like math and cosmology you should read the entire paper that contained the quote from Vilenkin I linked to.

Link or coordinates of the article?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you talking about tens less time?

I have no idea what that is. I am talking about having an infinite amount of time in the past. At each point of time, the past is still infinite. There is no start. Nothing traverses an infinite amount of time. the amount of time between any two events is always finite.

 

[1robin]

Well, QM regards most things as probability waves--these are (initially--later they can be vector valued) complex valued functions that satisfy a certain partial differential equation (Schrodinger's Equation). To find the probability of finding a 'particle' in a given region, you integrate the absolute square of the solution to that PDE over that region. Other 'observables' are described via operators on that same function. So momentum is a scaled version of the derivative (in three dimensions, the gradient).

PDE was the worst class I ever had. I knew a guy who graduated from the Navy's nuclear engineering school who failed it 5 times in a row. I am familiar with the probability zones for electrons but not particles in general.

Well, the question os existence and uniqueness immediately comes up. For example, why would we expect a creator to also be a morality giver? Why would we expect a first cause to be a creator? Why are we not defining three different things here and not just one? And *that* is even assuming the concepts themselves are well-defined (which I don't think they are).

I have no reason to doubt the objective quality of perceived morality. Even if there are epistemological grey zones most people view at least some things to be morally wrong or morally right. If I can trust my experiential knowledge then objective moral values and duties exist. For them to exist a transcendent and objective source is required.

The paths may be different but the logic will always be identical. I apprehend reality, it requires an explanation, I find (through argumentation), that the explanation for all perception has ultimately already been described by bronze age men. They did not know the questions yet got every answer right. This requires a lot or argumentation but today alone I have had over 20 debates. Its either feast or famine on this forum.

As for 'negative theology', the difficulty is that this means there is no way to even test the consistency, let alone the actual existence of such a thing. How do you know all those negative properties don't exclude everything that actually exists?

It is not a negative theology, it is a negative description. My faith primarily rests on positive supernatural experience. Being born again. My faith does not rest entirely on argumentation but my debates must because you have no access to my experience.

Again. Boolean algebra is a language. It says nothing about the real world. To find out something about the real world, we have to *look* and *test*. Any non-testable view is no better than meaningless.

I used to predict logical states over time given an initial state. However at the very least it proves that intelligence exists because there is no non-intelligent source of information.

And, again, the Biblical account *was* shown wrong long before the rise of string theory. There has been a rear-guard action for the last 200 years in Christian theology.

This was pure bluff. The bible is 750,000 words long, it contains unimaginably accurate historical accounts, and throws in 2500 prophecies to boot. Which were disproven?

We can go into the historical aspects of this and I would agree that the Christian viewpoint that the universe is rational and can be understood by humans was a significant aspect. it was seen in other cultures earlier, but it faded (partly because of very early Christianity, mind you).

Its history has already been gone into, and even atheists had to admit their faith was their primary drive. It wasn't really seen else where. For example advances in technology occurred in China but not abstract science.

I would also agree that certain religious viewpoints are worse than others: Judaism seems to be quite good and Islam seems to be quite bad at promoting science.

I agree on Judaism but at one point Islam dominated everyone in science and especially medical science.

I think you would find that Christianity *has* fallen back significantly over the last 300 years due, in part, to the advancement of science. The answers supplied by religion at one point are now supplied by science. Also, and this is an unfortunate fact, education has declined badly in the US and that has correlated with a rise of fundamentalist Christianity.

It isn't falling back at all. It grows by the equivalent population of Nevada every year. Islam is growing faster but they consider a baby a Muslim and make getting out a capitol crime in many places.

Newton was at the transition between medieval and modern viewpoints (and partially responsible for the shift), but he had a mystical side that was definitely not scientific, even by the standards of his time.

If this mythic contradiction between science and God existed Newton should have been the most rabid atheist in history.

Did I manage enough? If not, I can pull back a bit more.

I did not see any quantum conclusions, I just saw some descriptions. What I would need from you to be persuasive is to show me an example of something infinite, another universe, an actual quantum anything coming into being uncaused from nothing, show me why Vilenkin was wrong, or the like.

 

[1robin]

This is incorrect.

First, space is NOT an expanding bubble. Spacetime is a four dimensional manifold with a metric where the spatial cross sections increase in distances over time.

It is possible for the spatial aspect to be finite or infinite.

I get so tired of posting the pictures I am just going to explain that every visual model I find when I search BB cosmology is a bubble or a cross section of one. There seems to be two schools of thought whether the universe is confined to only the surface of the bubble or also occupying the entire sphere, but in general its always a sphere.

Next, the classical BB ideas were based on just General relativity, which has, by necessity, singularities in the solutions of its PDEs. This is part of what lead to the issue of finite duration: in that formulation, the time axis cannot be extended back infinitely (similar to the way the latitude lines on the surface of the globe can't be extended past the poles).

Looks like we took two different paths but we wound up at the same place, in a single finite universe.

However, general relativity is KNOWN to not include important effects from quantum mechanics. When those are incorporated into the equations, there are several possibilities.

It is possible that entropy will reverse its self and my motorcycle will refrigerate its self.

One is that time remains finite into the past. Most quantum gravity theories do not do this, though.

One is that there was a previous contraction phase before the BB expansion phase. Time in these goes infinitely into the past.

I know about this one, your describing what Carol calls the oscillating universe. However even he admits the only evidence that it exists is his handwriting of it on poster board. It would not work anyway because the oscillations would not be 100% efficient and so if time was eternal in the past the universe would have run its self out of energy infinitely long ago.

And one is that there is a multiverse where smaller, causality closed universes split off, one of which is ours.

Lets say we found a translucent blue ball covered in information (like DNA) while walking through the woods. I said wow something created this thing and put it here, and you said no mathematics created it and put it here. Would it make it any difference what size the ball was, if the ball sort of split into more than one, or if there were more than one ball?

No need to span an infinite gap. The negative integers still exist even though there is not a first one.

But we do not live on a number line, we live in a universe which has sequential events. If You asked me to borrow a dollar and I said I do not have one but let me ask Mr X, he says he will ask Mr Y and this goes on for an infinite amount of time you will never get a dollar. Only if someone in a finite number who were asked produced a dollar would you ever get one. We have a universe, it's cause can't have occurred an infinite time ago. No matter what second we look at, no dollar.

Sorry, had to leave in a hurry, get to the rest tomorrow. Good debate.

 

[Polymath257]

PDE was the worst class I ever had. I knew a guy who graduated from the Navy's nuclear engineering school who failed it 5 times in a row. I am familiar with the probability zones for electrons but not particles in general.

I wish that story about the Navy engineer made me feel more comfortable. But it doesn't. PDEs are really not that hard. The early classes especially. You just separate into ODEs and solve.

I have no reason to doubt the objective quality of perceived morality. Even if there are epistemological grey zones most people view at least some things to be morally wrong or morally right. If I can trust my experiential knowledge then objective moral values and duties exist. For them to exist a transcendent and objective source is required.

Objective yes (if morality is objective--I'm not convinced). but why not just ordinary evolution to learn what is helpful for people?

The paths may be different but the logic will always be identical. I apprehend reality, it requires an explanation, I find (through argumentation), that the explanation for all perception has ultimately already been described by bronze age men. They did not know the questions yet got every answer right. This requires a lot or argumentation but today alone I have had over 20 debates. Its either feast or famine on this forum.

Garbage. it was NOT described by bronze-age men. That is your misinterpretation of what they wrote.

It is not a negative theology, it is a negative description. My faith primarily rests on positive supernatural experience. Being born again. My faith does not rest entirely on argumentation but my debates must because you have no access to my experience.

Sorry, your position is called negative theology. I'm not ing it to be a negative thing.

I used to predict logical states over time given an initial state. However at the very least it proves that intelligence exists because there is no non-intelligent source of information.

This was pure bluff. The bible is 750,000 words long, it contains unimaginably accurate historical accounts, and throws in 2500 prophecies to boot. Which were disproven?

Its history has already been gone into, and even atheists had to admit their faith was their primary drive. It wasn't really seen else where. For example advances in technology occurred in China but not abstract science.

I agree on Judaism but at one point Islam dominated everyone in science and especially medical science.

It isn't falling back at all. It grows by the equivalent population of Nevada every year. Islam is growing faster but they consider a baby a Muslim and make getting out a capitol crime in many places.

If this mythic contradiction between science and God existed Newton should have been the most rabid atheist in history.[/QUOTE]
Not in his culture and not at the level of science at the time.

I did not see any quantum conclusions, I just saw some descriptions. What I would need from you to be persuasive is to show me an example of something infinite, another universe, an actual quantum anything coming into being uncaused from nothing, show me why Vilenkin was wrong, or the like.

I was using quantum mechanics to show that causality isn't a requirement. Unlike classical mechanics, quantum mechanics is based on a probabilistic description rather than a deterministic one.

I get so tired of posting the pictures I am just going to explain that every visual model I find when I search BB cosmology is a bubble or a cross section of one. There seems to be two schools of thought whether the universe is confined to only the surface of the bubble or also occupying the entire sphere, but in general its always a sphere.

Yes, I know. It is one of the difficulties of trying to explain an expanding universe to the public. The *actual* equations can describe either a universe with finite space, but curved OR an infinite universe. In the latter case, it is still possible for the universe to be curved, but negatively instead of positively (think a saddle rather than a sphere).

Those that use the surface of a sphere are closest to being accurate, but they still leave a lot to be desired. Again, there are difficulties in describing a curved four dimensional spacetime to people who have problems understanding three dimensions accura

Looks like we took two different paths but we wound up at the same place, in a single finite universe.

Except that is NOT the description that matches the best information we have. Currently, it looks like space is flat and infinite. Whether time is finite or infinite into the past depends on which version of quantum gravity is correct.

It is possible that entropy will reverse its self and my motorcycle will refrigerate its self.

Not required.

I know about this one, your describing what Carol calls the oscillating universe. However even he admits the only evidence that it exists is his handwriting of it on poster board. It would not work anyway because the oscillations would not be 100% efficient and so if time was eternal in the past the universe would have run its self out of energy infinitely long ago.

No, I am NOT describing he oscillating universe. Such a universe would be finite spatially and highly curved in a way that current evidence points away from. I am saying that some models have a *single* contracting phase before the current expansion phase.

Lets say we found a translucent blue ball covered in information (like DNA) while walking through the woods. I said wow something created this thing and put it here, and you said no mathematics created it and put it here. Would it make it any difference what size the ball was, if the ball sort of split into more than one, or if there were more than one ball?

Well, I would *never* say that mathematics put it there. So that was a straw man.

I *would* ask what sort of processes we know for the production of information (and we know many), the formation of balls like that (and size *does* matter here because gravitational effects depend on mass), and what materials were available to form such balls. I certainly would NOT default to an intelligence without looking at alternatives. And this is the same process for deciding whether a broken stone was fashioned to be a tool or was a natural process.

But we do not live on a number line, we live in a universe which has sequential events. If You asked me to borrow a dollar and I said I do not have one but let me ask Mr X, he says he will ask Mr Y and this goes on for an infinite amount of time you will never get a dollar. Only if someone in a finite number who were asked produced a dollar would you ever get one. We have a universe, it's cause can't have occurred an infinite time ago. No matter what second we look at, no dollar.

Again, you assume a start. That is the problem. What if there *is* no start? What if there is no cause for the universe as a whole? What if dollars have always been passed without a first person asking?


Let me put it this way. You *assume* that God is eternal. That he has always existed. Why not the universe, which we *know* exists as opposed to a deity which we do not?

Sorry, had to leave in a hurry, get to the rest tomorrow. Good debate.

NP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If that is true then how on Earth are you going to be able to select the correct worldview before the end of the game?

What "game"?

There's a tactic in sales of trying to create a sense of urgency in your customer: he might like to think about his decision more... do some research, check out your competitors, maybe decide whether he even needs your product at all. All of this could potentially cause you to lose the sale, so you tell him something to make him stop any further careful reflection and buy right now: "I have someone else coming in to check this car out after lunch" or "if you don't decide before you die, you might end up in Hell... and you never know when you might die."

But here's the thing: I don't like being manipulated. I have a real problem with sales tactics that try to undermine my critical thinking. I'm going to ignore your claim that life is a "game" with a time limit for some action unless I see good reason to accept it.

Evangelists really need to realize that their sales process needs to have two phases: before they can sell someone their "cure", they have to sell them the disease.

 

[Milton Platt]

Speaking in general and in your opinion, do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?

Such as for example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence, but then not holding the same standards for their own claims.

While there are those who do make a claim, most non-believers simply reject the theistic assertions as having insufficient evidence to make belief supportable. There is no evidence needed for a simple lack of belief, as this not an assertion that there are no gods. Also, you are asking for evidence to support a negative. It is not possible to prove with 100% certainty that Thor, Shiva, Baal, or unicorns, do not exist somewhere in the universe. Should one accept belief in these as well, then?

 

[1robin]

No need to span an infinite gap. The negative integers still exist even though there is not a first one.

You keep making arguments that are only true if time is tens less. We do not live in an integer line, we live in a world sequentially progressing through units of time. So turn your integers into seconds, no matter which second you consider this second your universe would have had to pass through an infinite prior number of seconds to get to the one you picked. Infinites only exist as abstract concepts. That is why you talk about lines and integers, and I talk about seconds, distance, density, temperature, etc.... as soon as you turn an infinite into any actual natural entity it no longer can exist.

Since you are wrong about the 'bubble', you are also wrong about the finiteness of space. Current evidence is for a flat space, which would be infinite.

I am ambivalent about the shape of space. I just choose the bubble shape because that is the model I find when I look up BBT. Flat space is a fringe theory but even if the universe was flat it would still be finite and still need a certain type of creator.

And exactly what do you consider to the the contradiction (as opposed to mere paradox) in Hilbert's Hotel? I see nothing about it that says there can't be an actual infinite regression.

I have no idea, scholars far smarter than I bring up Hilbert's hotel to show that finites can only exist as ideas. The same thing with the ontological argument for God. I do not get it at all but well credentialed scholars I have grown to trust say it is the strongest argument for God. I thought that since you had so much math you might understand Hilbert's hotel even if I can't. It took me ten years of thinking to prove pure determinism was untrue. I tried and failed for ten years, and then over one afternoon I thought of trillions of exceptions to pure determinism. Maybe one day I will get Hilbert's hotel and Planting's ontological argument.

No, The point of this is that subtraction of infinities is not defined. That arithmetic operation is the issue. It works differently for infinite sets than it does for finite ones. That shouldn't be a surprise, though. It certainly isn't a contradiction.

No, that was an exact description showing that when the idea of infinity is imposed on actual things it gives garbage results.

You are assuming it has a start, then completed an infinite number of cycles, then reached the present. Your mistake is assuming there was a start. For any negative integer, there is an infinite number of negative integers prior. Nothing is traversing ALL of the negative integers, and there is a finite distance between any two.

No, I am not. I am assuming there is an infinite series of natural states which occur sequentially. There is no way to start at this event and span the past series of events, so if you simply reverse that it can be seen that we could not have reached this event.

So?

What?

Why would you assume that? it is *one* of the possibilities, but far from the only one.

I didn't assume that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin did. Either you keep ignoring the BGVT or I keep failing to link it.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Their model was specifically designed to be so robust that it was independent of whatever the latest fad concerning the singularity might be.

Link or coordinates of the article?

The link I gave is a representative sample of their conclusions, if you read the parent article you will find their denials concerning cracked egg, oscillating, and most other theoretical explanation for our universe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While there are those who do make a claim, most non-believers simply reject the theistic assertions as having insufficient evidence to make belief supportable. There is no evidence needed for a simple lack of belief, as this not an assertion that there are no gods. Also, you are asking for evidence to support a negative. It is not possible to prove with 100% certainty that Thor, Shiva, Baal, or unicorns, do not exist somewhere in the universe. Should one accept belief in these as well, then?

Building on that, there are plenty of incoherent descriptions of gods out there. We can't evaluate a claim as false until we can evaluate it, period. The reasonable response in these cases is "I can't work with you until you figure out how to express what you want to say," not "I can't tell what you're trying to say to me, but I know it's wrong."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same thing with the ontological argument for God. I do not get it at all but well credentialed scholars I have grown to trust say it is the strongest argument for God.

That's pretty sad, because the ontological argument - Anselm's version or the modal logic version - is nonsense. If that's the best that theistic apologetics has to offer, then I can give up any hope that theism might be rational.

 

[1robin]

I have no idea what that is. I am talking about having an infinite amount of time in the past. At each point of time, the past is still infinite. There is no start. Nothing traverses an infinite amount of time. the amount of time between any two events is always finite.

What you keep referring to sounds a lot like the alternative theory of time called "tens less time". Since you swim in the deep end (I am talking the Mariana's trench deep) of the theoretical science pool I thought you probably held that point of view. Your still dealing only with abstract ideas. Infinity can exist as an idea, but not an actual. Lets say there was a watch designed so perfectly that it would last forever. How do you get the second hand which has been ticking forever to reach now? It would necessarily have to travel an infinite distance and that is impossible. Saying an infinite regression of natural states produced the current state of affairs is logically incoherent and can only live in models and theories.

 

[1robin]

That's pretty sad, because the ontological argument - Anselm's version or the modal logic version - is nonsense. If that's the best that theistic apologetics has to offer, then I can give up any hope that theism might be rational.

I wrote a long response, but my computer deleted it for some reason. You get the simple version. My point was not whether the ontological argument was good or bad. It was that many things (arguments, conclusions, etc..) seem bad because we can't understand them. Dozens of times I have considered arguments stupid for years, only to have them crystalize in a moment, which left me ashamed of my former ignorance. Try reading Plantinga's ontological argument, I still don't get it, but it is more robust that Anselm's.