Atheistic Double Standard?

[1robin]

And how should I show such credentials?

Once again, Vilenkin was working with a description that is primarily based on general relativity. He showed, for example, that inflation cannot be eternal. But few were expecting that to be the case.

His basic issue, and a common one with *all* models for the very early universe, is that we do not have a verified quantum theory of gravity. Vilenkin is mostly working in a classical GR model with a few quantum additions, not a fully quantum theory of gravity.

Those theories that we *do* have for quantum gravity ALL have time going past the BB into the past, either as a 'bounce' or as a multiverse. The 'bounce' version is NOT the oscillating universe that you were talking about.

Next, I am not saying that a finite universe is completely ruled out. It just isn't the best fit to the data we currently have. At present, the spatial curvature is zero to our levels of accuracy. This allows for either a finite or an infinite universe depending on whether the curvature is actually positive or not.

But, like I said, ALL versions of quantum gravity that we have so far have time going past the BB into the past.



Again, is time goes infinitely into the past, there need not be a 'prime mover'. But I will agree, we do not *know* at this point. But silly philosophical arguments about infinite time aren't going to resolve the issue. The only thing that *could* is finding a verifiable quantum theory of gravity.



No, science is NOT based on the universality of cause and effect. For example, the timing of a nuclear decay is random. There is nothing different about a nucleus that decays now versus a nucleus of the same type that decays in ten years. The timing of that decay is not caused.

Most quantum level phenomena are uncaused in the classical sense of the term where the cause uniquely determines the effect. In fact, for most quantum systems (and this has been verified), there are multiple possible outcomes with NO cause for one over the others. This is verified and 'hidden causes' have been excluded.



I am quite familiar with Platinga's argument. he failed because he did a double quantification that was not allowed.



Sorry, but the fact that quantum mechanics is how the universe works and that it is a non-causal theory shows your logic is flawed.

How do you want me to show competence? Passing PhD level quals in it? Being able to explain what is going on in Arrow's experiment? Or being able to do a perturbation analysis of how a hydrogen atom reacts to a passing photon?

I am not sure what happened here. The post of mine you responded to seems out of order. Some of it does not even look like it was meant for you. I do not know what happened but something went horribly wrong. Unless you desire otherwise I would suggest we simply forget the above. Is this the post that I said was formatted incorrectly?

 

[Polymath257]

I am not sure what happened here. The post of mine you responded to seems out of order. Some of it does not even look like it was meant for you. I do not know what happened but something went horribly wrong. Unless you desire otherwise I would suggest we simply forget the above. Is this the post that I said was formatted incorrectly?

OK. We can forget this post if you wish.

 

[1robin]

All internally logically consistent systems.

Ok, now I am certain. The post your responding to was initially made to someone else. Now there is nothing wrong with responding to a post I make to another person, but sometimes the contexts will not be transferable. I knew the person I made that post to did not understand the ontological argument and was simply using a test to demonstrate it. Since we have not (in fact I don't use it myself) used the ontological argument for God my challenge is out of place. I do not understand the ontological argument, so I do not defend it. I simply withhold judgment on it and will not dismiss it, because scholars I trust consider it such a strong argument.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok, now I am certain. The post your responding to was initially made to someone else. Now there is nothing wrong with responding to a post I make to another person, but sometimes the contexts will not be transferable. I knew the person I made that post to did not understand the ontological argument and was simply using a test to demonstrate it. Since we have not (in fact I don't use it myself) used the ontological argument for God my challenge is out of place. I do not understand the ontological argument, so I do not defend it. I simply withhold judgment on it and will not dismiss it, because scholars I trust consider it such a strong argument.

OK, fair enough. I do often respond to posts that are not directed specifically at me.

Platinga's version of the ontological argument is deeply flawed. if you wish, I can go into details, but that certainly isn't required.

 

[1robin]

OK. Now what? There is no *logical* contradiction involved in an infinite time into the past any more than there is for an infinite time into the future.

I think I have already covered infinite regression several times. I do not know how else to say it, you can't span an infinite number of past events to arrive at the current one. Concerning the future, it is a potential unbounded finite, not an infinite.

Exactly. But the universe was never in such a state infinitely far back. It has always been in a state finitely far back. But each state finitely far back came from a state slight earlier.

Your like a chronological nihilist or chameleon.

OK, but you claimed there is a *logical* contradiction to an infinite time into the past. Have you given up that claim?

Are you asking about the semantic technicality of the terms "logical contradiction"? I was using it as shorthand, if so, I would have to look it up. I think the actual specific labels should be logically incoherent not contradictory. It is hard to contradict the lack of a thing.

If so, that means we have to address the possibility of an infinite time into the past.

No this is an attempt to use semantic technicality to resurrect an argument found only in the abstract.

And, currently, there are two main options (duh): time that is only finite into the past and time that is infinite into the past.

No there are 3 if infinite time is included. There is also tense less time. As bad as it is I consider it more likely than tensed infinite time.

The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.
B-theory of time - Wikipedia

The main arguments for a finite time derive from the BB model and general relativity. It is a fact that general relativity inevitably has singularities. For cosmology, those singularities limit the time coordinate to a finite value into the past.

Yes, this is the only theory of time which has evidence for it. Any additional theories only exist (at least as far as we can see) in someone's mind.

The main counter-argument is that general relativity is known to be incomplete: it doesn't incorporate the known aspects of quantum mechanics. For a *long* time, we didn't know of any way to reconcile these two central ideas about the universe. Now we have several proposed quantum theories of gravity: string theory, quantum loop gravity, etc. But in *all* of these, the singularities of general relativity are 'smoothed out' and time does go infinitely far into the past.

This is the same kind of argument as my motorcycle's engine refrigerating it's self. It might look possible in some abstract model, but the model seems to contradict actual experience and data. I do not understand the desire to be chased completely out of known reality to escape the only ultimate hope for mankind. It is really strange to observe from my side of things.

So, at this point, we do not know if time is infinite into the past or not. And that is my point. It is *logically* and *observationally* possible for either to be the case.

We are stuck exactly where we started. I started by saying that people will take science on faith but demand proof for God. The merit of their arguments will merely be that it can't be shown to be impossible.

Huh? The BB model is a four dimensional model for spacetime. The images you have are simplifications to get the idea across. Most people don't deal with four dimensions very well, let alone curvature of four dimensions.

I do not have any images. I was talking about every single image I have ever seen when I looked them up. Even the cross sections assume volume. The only exception would be that flat oval you see modeling the background radiation, but it is not supposed to represent space to begin with. Show my what would stop things from expanding in the spherical shape we so often see with our eyes. Was there some kind of preexisting mold that forced the universe to only expand in directions you found convenient? Have you ever heard the expression of "educating ourselves into imbecility"?

No, you didn't. You just showed that infinity-infinity isn't a meaningful thing. That was your whole 'contradiction'. Yes, if you have an infinite number of things and take away three, you still have an infinite number of things. Yes, if you have an infinite number of things and you take away 10, you still have an infinite number of things. And yes, if you have an infinite number of things, it is possible to take away an infinite number of things and have an infinite number of things left over.

Forget "contradiction", I was not being semantically precise. I am pretty sure the proper terms are logically incoherent.

Where is the contradiction?

Do you also have a degree in obsessive semantic technicalities?

You claimed logical contradictions. There are none.

My goodness, your locked up. Are you old enough to remember what it sounds like when a record would not let the needle out of the groove? Logical incoherence for pity's sake.

yes, I am responding to what you said. Yes, it has gone on for an infinite amount of time. Where is the contradiction?

This is worse, when records skip you could always throw something at the record player to make it do something else.

I'm sorry for your significant other? I'm not sure what the relevance was for that comment.

What are you talking about? You said that we had only figured out all this infinite past stiff after the BGVT was announced, I replied that they announced the BGVT in 2003. What significant other are you talking about?

They have been *modified* by the new insights. But I agree, these new insights have not been *proven*. But the point is that they are *possible*. You claimed they are not even logically possible.

I find only accepted models as persuasive, in fact I usually do not consider theories as new as BGVT to be persuasive but it's robustness makes up the difference. Got to go. Get to the rest soon.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

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.

I don't think so, in general. A falsifiable claim is legitimate, an unfalsifiable claim is not legitimate. Anyone that demands proof of god is as irrational as anyone that claims their is a god. I personally claim there is no god. But the question is irrelevent. It is as meaningless a question as do unicorns exist.

Anything that can't be detected, can't be seen, can't be known...can not affect us. If it could it would amount to being seen. If god exists, he is irrelevant by his own choice.

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm drawing a distinction between "an incoherent god" and "a god that may or may not be coherent in the believer's head but has been explained in a way I can't understand."

Often, I can't tell whether the explanation accurately reflects the god the person believes in. Sometimes, the person argues that the explanation isn't accurate ("I can't put my experience of God into words..." etc.).

I try to keep in mind that I'm evaluating what's presented to me, which mighy be different from what the person I'm talking to actually believes. If someone's just bad at communicating their position, I won't take this to mean that their position is necessarily wrong; but I will take it to mean that I have no reason to accept their position as right.

Ah, I get your drift......But there is also a distinction to be made (sometimes with difficulty) between an incoherent person and an incoherent god. if a person does describe his god and the proposed god is internally incoherent, then there is a discussion to be had. If the person cannot articulate what his god actually is, then that is a different discussion (or possibly the end of the discussion.

 

[Milton Platt]

OK, I have run across this stuff before. I am always amazed at the contortions philosophers get themselves into. I would say I am closest to the B description of time, but it fails to encompass the full description. The best way to approach this issue isn't to focus on time, but to focus on spacetime. Neither time alone nor space alone has any set meaning. So, for example, different observers will disagree about what events are simultaneous(bit at different locations). They will also disagree about which events happen at the same location (but at different times). But, nevertheless, there is a geometry of spacetime that they *will* agree about.

This is basic special relativity. And it becomes even more fundamental as you proceed to general relativity.

You are only saying this because it's true, aren't you?????LOL

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't think so, in general. A falsifiable claim is legitimate, an unfalsifiable claim is not legitimate. Anyone that demands proof of god is as irrational as anyone that claims their is a god. I personally claim there is no god. But the question is irrelevent. It is as meaningless a question as do unicorns exist.

Anything that can't be detected, can't be seen, can't be known...can not affect us. If it could it would amount to being seen. If god exists, he is irrelevant by his own choice.

jumping into a thread I am not a party to....but forgive the impulsiveness........
why is it irrational to ask for proof of an assertion?

 

[Polymath257]

I think I have already covered infinite regression several times. I do not know how else to say it, you can't span an infinite number of past events to arrive at the current one. Concerning the future, it is a potential unbounded finite, not an infinite.

Why is it iimpossible to span an infinite number of events given an infinite amount of time to do so? That isn't a contradiction.

Your like a chronological nihilist or chameleon.

No, what is said is perfectly reasonable. Again, look at the example of the negative integers.

Are you asking about the semantic technicality of the terms "logical contradiction"? I was using it as shorthand, if so, I would have to look it up. I think the actual specific labels should be logically incoherent not contradictory. It is hard to contradict the lack of a thing.

And it is neither logically incoherent nor contradictory. In fact, it works quite well.

No this is an attempt to use semantic technicality to resurrect an argument found only in the abstract.

On the contrary, it is a very real possibility and is supported by all currently available theories of quantum gravity.

No there are 3 if infinite time is included. There is also tense less time. As bad as it is I consider it more likely than tensed infinite time.

The B-theory of time is the name given to one of two positions regarding philosophy of time. B-theorists argue that the flow of time is an illusion, that the past, present and future are equally real, and that time is tenseless. This would mean that temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.
B-theory of time - Wikipedia
[/

I find the A and B distinction to be incoherent.

Yes, this is the only theory of time which has evidence for it. Any additional theories only exist (at least as far as we can see) in someone's mind.

The quantum theories of gravity have just as much support as general relativity.

This is the same kind of argument as my motorcycle's engine refrigerating it's self. It might look possible in some abstract model, but the model seems to contradict actual experience and data. I do not understand the desire to be chased completely out of known reality to escape the only ultimate hope for mankind. It is really strange to observe from my side of things.

We *know* that both general relativity and quantum mechanics are very good descriptions of the universe in their respective realms. Neither has been contradicted by any observation, experience, or data. The quantum theories of gravity attempt to merge the two into a single overall theory. Because their differences with general relativity only happen at extreme energy levels, ALL current data is equally consistent with the known versions of quantum gravity. SO they are NOT simply 'abstract'; they are realistic descriptions that encompass what we currently know in one description.

We are stuck exactly where we started. I started by saying that people will take science on faith but demand proof for God. The merit of their arguments will merely be that it can't be shown to be impossible.

On the contrary, I freely admit we do not know which of the available possibilities is the case. YOU are the one attempting to eliminate cases that are consistent with all current data.

I do not have any images. I was talking about every single image I have ever seen when I looked them up. Even the cross sections assume volume. The only exception would be that flat oval you see modeling the background radiation, but it is not supposed to represent space to begin with. Show my what would stop things from expanding in the spherical shape we so often see with our eyes. Was there some kind of preexisting mold that forced the universe to only expand in directions you found convenient? Have you ever heard the expression of "educating ourselves into imbecility"?

My grandfather talked of educated fools. Same idea.

But the point is that the *actual* scientific theory is of a *four* dimensional spacetime with three dimensional cross sections. Such a description is, shall we say, difficult to show an image of.

Forget "contradiction", I was not being semantically precise. I am pretty sure the proper terms are logically incoherent.

And that would be wrong also. It is perfectly coherent.

Do you also have a degree in obsessive semantic technicalities?

No, I have a PhD in math. and almost a PhD in physics.

My goodness, your locked up. Are you old enough to remember what it sounds like when a record would not let the needle out of the groove? Logical incoherence for pity's sake.

OK, logical coherence. It is still wrong. The idea is perfectly coherent.

This is worse, when records skip you could always throw something at the record player to make it do something else.

Hey, you are the one that keeps repeating that there is something logically wrong with infinite time when there isn't.

I find only accepted models as persuasive, in fact I usually do not consider theories as new as BGVT to be persuasive but it's robustness makes up the difference. Got to go. Get to the rest soon.

And at this point we do not know which of several alternatives is valid. The 'accepted' one is 'accepted' to be incomplete for times before inflation.[/QUOTE]

 

[Willamena]

jumping into a thread I am not a party to....but forgive the impulsiveness........
why is it irrational to ask for proof of an assertion?

It's not just any assertion, it's just that one.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

jumping into a thread I am not a party to....but forgive the impulsiveness........
why is it irrational to ask for proof of an assertion?

It's irrational to make an unfalsifiable claim. It's just as irrational to demand proof of an unfalsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim is meaningless, in rational terms.

 

[JustWondering]

"Why do you think it's wrong for someone to ask for evidence if someone is making extraordinary claims?"

I certainly never said anything like that. Where is your evidence that I "think it's wrong for someone to ask for evidence if someone is making extraordinary claims"?

It is amazing how many "non-believers" posting in this thread read things in the OP which are simply not there. I mean it seems to validate my point.

Gee, maybe because you start a thread to bash atheists for daring to ask theists to provide actual evidence to back their claims, maybe that's where my question came from. Any other brain busters?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Gee, maybe because you start a thread to bash atheists for daring to ask theists to provide actual evidence to back their claims, maybe that's where my question came from. Any other brain busters?

That is not the reason I started the thread, but keep going on with you baseless assumptions and maybe just maybe you'll stumble over it.

 

[JustWondering]

That is not the reason I started the thread, but keep going on with you baseless assumptions and maybe just maybe you'll stumble over it.

You started the thread because you have a negative stereotypical view of all atheists that led to you foolishly create a ridiculous strawman argument in your OP to rant about. I clearly demonstrated that I don't fall into your preconceived idea of what all atheists are like. Sad day for you. You lost this one.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Dear God I have to revisit this.....

"Speaking in general..........." in other words expect an illogical explanation based upon generalizations.....

"in your opinion"....about to let go with that....

"do non-believers hold a double standard when it comes to religion?"...........evidence? An argument? Oh, here we go........

"Such as an example: Demanding religious claims be backed by hard evidence".....okay.....that sounds reasonable.......

"but then not holding the same standards for their own claims"........and here is the evidence coming.......don't hold your breath.........

Oh wait.......there was no evidence at all. None whatsoever.

No evidence. No argument.

Just a bunch of useless assumptions.

24 pages of garbage because the OP relied on instigating assumptions.

Sometimes some people are too full of themselves.

They lack humility.

You can drop the whole anger act, it won't work on me.

Now, had you actually read the thread then you would have noticed I pointed out several cases of atheists making baseless claims in this very thread. Also perhaps you should look up the word example.

"evidence? An argument? Oh, here we go........"

The OP clearly ask for an opinion. Do you need hard evidence when making generalize opinions? No, you don't. Do you think I worded it that way for that exact reason? Yes, I did. I wanted to hear people's opinions.

Personally, I think the OP was written well, but I didn't account for the extreme reader bias of the forum members here. You are seeing what you want to see, and not what is there. It seems some of you jumped to the conclusion that this is some type of attack on atheism going on here, so you came riding in on your white horse like a religious zealot.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

You started the thread because you have a negative stereotypical view of all atheists that led to you foolishly create a ridiculous strawman argument in your OP to rant about. I clearly demonstrated that I don't fall into your preconceived idea of what all atheists are like. Sad day for you. You lost this one.

You do realize you are taking to an atheist right? That I am a non-believer myself. You are basically just proving the OP right, as you make one baseless assumption after another.

 

[JustWondering]

You do realize you are taking to an atheist right? That I am a non-believer myself. You are basically just proving the OP right, as you make one baseless assumption after another.

So you're a self-loathing atheist? That doesn't make your argument any less ridiculous.

Your OP accused Atheists, full stop, of being hypocrites if they asked theists for evidence for their claims. That is a ridiculous argument, it doesn't matter that you're an atheist.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So you're a self-loathing atheist? That doesn't make your argument any less ridiculous.

Your OP accused Atheists, full stop, of being hypocrites if they asked theists for evidence for their claims. That is a ridiculous argument, it doesn't matter that you're an atheist.

So now you are concluding I hate myself because I don't believe in God? I am not really sure how that works, but as far as I know I do not hate myself for not believing God.

I mean you are just Donald Trumping out here. Take a few deep breaths, collect yourself and just relax.

You very clearly make many assumptions with little to no evidence, which means, in your case, you have proven the OP right.

 

[JustWondering]

Personally, I think the OP was written well, but I didn't account for the extreme reader bias of the forum members here. You are seeing what you want to see, and not what is there. It seems some of you jumped to the conclusion that this is some type of attack on atheism going on here, so you came riding in on your white horse like a religious zealot.

I think it shouldn't have been posted in the section for DEBATES. I saw a ridiculous argument because I was, as usual, looking for a DEBATE, in the General Religious DEBATES section of this site. I also find it amusing that when this confusion was obvious about your thread soon after it was posted you did nothing to clarify that you shouldn't have posted this in the DEBATES section. So to clarify, if you don't want to DEBATE something, don't post it in the DEBATES section.