Evolution and Mind/Body Dualism

[SkepticThinker]

Ok, but I am saying that there was a point at which literally nothing existed...so how can you apply QM when there was nothing there to apply it to? QM's, along with natural law in general, only came into play AFTER the universe began.


Ok, so I challenge you to give me one single entity within the universe that is responsible for its own beginning.


So please explain to me as to how you know the probability of whether a car, horse, and any other thing can pop in to being out of nothing. What mathematical formula are you using to determine this?



And you know this how?



First off, there is evidence that the universe began to exist, it is called the Standard Big Bang theory. Second, The whole "energy can't be either created or destroyed" is the first law of theromdynamics, which only came into play after the universe began to exist, and the argument presupposes naturalism. Third, the second law of thermodynamic states that in a closed system, entropy increases...so therefore, the universe couldn't have been hanging around forever if its finite energy hasn't run out yet.



If the universe is eternal, then why did it begin to expand only 13.7 billion years ago? If there was no time before it, then you cannot give any reason why it would begin to expand, because something would have to have "led" up to the expansion, which would make no sense if there was no time.

Makes no sense.



Yes it does, according to the standard model, literally nothing exist before the big bang...cosmologists were aware of these implications, which is why so many wacky models resulted after the Hubble discovery....where do you think the Steady State and Oscillating model came from?



Point?



That is just another name for God. Changing the name doesn't mean anything. If you want to call the Intelligent Designer "FSM", then have at it. You would still imply intelligent design in the meantime.



That is the religion of Charles Darwin. I prefer the religion of Jesus Christ.



Gravity and physical laws still have to operate within a universe...in time...which is absurd. Time cannot be past eternal.



A timeless cause is necessary.



After just over 3,000 posts dealing with so many logical absurdies, sometimes my emotions get the best of me.

Hey, any 3 year-old looking at a chimp, a gorilla and a human would say they are the same "kind." So they must be the same kind.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

There's no suggestion of that. Not from the Big Bang, or from anything.

Then the universe has existed eternally in time, which is right back to the absurdity of infinite regress, something that no physicists, cosmologist, mathematician, or anyone can overcome.

That's not even the point I'm trying to make.

You are saying that according to QM, things can pop in to being, uncaused out of nothing. If that isn't what you are saying, then what was the point of you even mentioning QM?

I'm simply saying that just because something isn't self-creating doesn't make the cause a deity, including the Universe.

Then, back to the absurdity of infinite regress.

Your only reason for why it should be a deity is simply because "it's in our vocabulary."

For the fifth time, I said that God is the only being capable of producing a physical universe that exists in time and space. I am giving you a reason why I think Goddidit. That is why it should be a Deity.

I didn't say anything about anything popping out of nothing. I said in QM, thinks/events/occurrences don't happen necessarily due to a cause. They happen based off probability.

That doesn't make one lick of sense. I am talking about a universe that began to exist, and anything that begins to exist owes its existence to something external to itself. I don't know this "probability" stuff you are talking about here...nor do I know how you can say events and occurenences dont' happen due to causes, as if there is something so special about QM that cause/effect relations is negated. If you are not suggesting that things pop in to being out of nothing, then every event has an external cause.

Because it's more particles. A single particle can quantum tunnel by chance. It's less likely for two to do it. It's even less likely for 100 to do it.

If a single particle can tunnel by chance, that would mean that the particle existed before the tunneling, which is irrelevant in light of the case that I am making.

Big objects like cars and horses are made out of an immense number of particles.

So what?

It doesn't matter. Strictly and formally speaking, the Big Bang says nothing about matter and energy.

It simply describes a state of the early Universe; that it was extremely hot and dense. You get extreme curvature of space-time with that. Same with a black hole.

Extremely hot and dense? So basically, you are saying that the universe existed in a singularity state for eternity, and it was sitting there, waiting to expand, and at the right moment, some 13.7 billion years ago, it suddenly expanded for absolutely no reason.

I will ask again, why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago, when it has been there for eternity? Why not 14 billion years? Why not 12? 10? Makes no sense.

That doesn't mean there was nothing at any point.

Again, then the singularity was just sitting out there waiting to expand for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Quite the contrary since matter and energy are the very things that distort space-time.

But there wasn't any space or time "prior" to the expansion...that is what the singularity was...a single point where space and matter was infinitely dense. No space, no time. That is what the big bang theory is all about, Andro.

Nobody knows.

Because the question cannot be adequately answered. If time is past eternal, there is no logical reason why any given event didn't happen sooner, or later.

That's what we do in science when we don't know something, we say we don't know. Not take random guesses and assumptions and say there was nothing or that god did it. It's irrational. No one knows why the Universe was in a dense-hot state 13 billion years ago. We just know that it was.

The problem of infinity is beyond science, and that is the problem that you have. No scientist can provide an answer as to how, if the universe has existed eternally in time, could we traverse and infinite amount of effects to reach our present moment of today.

And not only that, but to think that the universe began in a dense-hot state at which there was no life, intelligent, and consciousness, and to think that life, intelligence, and conciousness could have resulted from that.....that takes a lot of faith.

No.

"The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit."

WMAP Big Bang Theory


That's all it is. All this talk about there being nothing before it is taking it out of context.

So if the expansion of the singularity was also the expansion of space itself, before the expansion, what space did the singularity occupy? Makes no sense.

Not if we don't describe any of the alternatives as eternal or timeless or all-knowing. Then it isn't simply changing the name of your god.

Then at best you are a theist lol, and by the way, I said FSM was another name for "God", not "my God". So again, if you call the intelligent design FSM, who am I to stop you?

It could have just been advanced aliens, or simply another Universe.

The absurdity of infinity applies to advanced aliens as well.

Exactly. You prefer to go with a certain belief. You believe it because you want to believe it, not because of any data or reasoning.

In the same way you prefer to believe that humans are apes.

It's the most comfortable to you.

It makes the most SENSE to me.

They still are external to the things they form. That was the whole point.

Um, of course they are external to the things that they form, just like your parents were external to you. Duh.

And other laws could operate outside of our Universe, but are still just laws. Not a god.

But it would still be natural law, Andro.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hey, any 3 year-old looking at a chimp, a gorilla and a human would say they are the same "kind." So they must be the same kind.

They share a common designer.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Hey, Call_of_the_wild ... we're still waiting for your treatise on "kinds."

Dog kind...cat kind...fish kind...snake kind...bear kind..bird kind..kind, kind, kind.

Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind....verse 24.......God said "let the land producel iving creatures according to their kinds; livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, according to their kinds".

The book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago, fast forward to 8-11-14, and what do we see? We see animals producing after their kind...we see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

 

[Sapiens]

So tell me. Were all the cainids I listed "dog kind?"

 

[cottage]

Again, cot...with all due respect....WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, BRO? If you start with the proposition that the world and everythign within it began with the big bang...you have to come up with some sort of explanation as to why it began with the big bang...unless you are saying it popped in to being uncaused out of nothing, which is worse than magic.

Okay, where does the notion of causality come from? It comes from the phenomenal world, correct? So if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang then “nothing” must also apply to causality because it cannot exist in nothingness in order to produce something, right? And that means it cannot be argued that the world was caused. But the world actually exists. Therefore the world must be uncaused, which implies no contradiction. But to ignore the logic of the foregoing and propose God as the uncaused cause is both arbitrary and contradictory, for it means that God, the supposed necessary being, is dependent upon a worldly concept that lacks logical necessity, plus the further point which is that even Almighty God cannot create something from nothing.

Now then, you say I have to come up with an explanation “why [the world] began with the Big Bang.” Actually, no I don’t! Not if I’m arguing, as I am, that the world is uncaused. However if you are arguing that there is a personal being, who is supposedly self-sufficient and eternally existing, that caused the world to come into being, then it is logically incumbent upon you to provide a non-contradictory reason or purpose for his doing so.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Then the universe has existed eternally in time.

It existed for we don't know how long.

Learn to say "I don't know." Repeat it out loud until you're comfortable saying it.

You are saying that according to QM, things can pop in to being, uncaused out of nothing. If that isn't what you are saying, then what was the point of you even mentioning QM?

No, I didn't say anything like that.

Then, back to the absurdity of infinite regress.

What's absurd about it?

For the fifth time, I said that God is the only being capable of producing a physical universe that exists in time and space.

One could say aliens did it, and it would be equally as valid/invalid.

Anyone can come up with an endless amount of reasons other than god. The concept of god is nothing special.

That doesn't make one lick of sense.

Welcome to the world of Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't make a lick of sense, yet it seems to be undeniably true.

You can't expect everything in life to make sense. It's naive.

Extremely hot and dense? So basically, you are saying that the universe existed in a singularity state for eternity, and it was sitting there, waiting to expand, and at the right moment, some 13.7 billion years ago, it suddenly expanded for absolutely no reason.

See this is your problem. You don't take things as is. You reinterpret it to mean more than what it is.

Where do I say it was hot and dense forever?

I simply said it had this state 13 billion years ago. The state it was in prior to this is anyone's guess; whether it collapsed into this state from a less dense expanded universe, whether it was completely non-existent or whether it was made of chocolate.

But it was at this state 13 billion years ago.

I will ask again, why did it expand only 13.7 billion years ago, when it has been there for eternity? Why not 14 billion years? Why not 12? 10? Makes no sense.

Because it already was 12 billion years ago at one time. It already was 10 billion(or just 10) at one time. If you wait a billion years, it will be 14 billion years ago, then you'll be asking why it wasn't 13 billion.

Again, then the singularity was just sitting out there waiting to expand for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

No, all I said is it had this state 13 billion years ago. You added the assumption that it was this way prior to the rapid expansion forever before it.

You should try not to add assumptions. Maybe things will make more sense.

But there wasn't any space or time "prior" to the expansion...that is what the singularity was...a single point where space and matter was infinitely dense. No space, no time. That is what the big bang theory is all about, Andro.

Space-time was curved in onto it self, and it's wholly due to mass and energy. So it's contradictory to say there was no mass and energy.

If time is past eternal, there is no logical reason why any given event didn't happen sooner, or later.

No one said it didn't happen sooner or later.

Also, how does an infinite deity solve that? Why didn't he make the Universe 10 billion years ago?

The problem of infinity is beyond science, and that is the problem that you have. No scientist can provide an answer as to how, if the universe has existed eternally in time, could we traverse and infinite amount of effects to reach our present moment of today.

And the concept of God is no different.

He existed for eternity, and it took him an eternity to decide to make a universe.

In fact, the concept of God is worse, because it means this is the first universe he ever made for the first time in eternity.

At least with an infinite universe, any event that happened now could have happened an infinite number of times in the past, therefor NOT taking an infinite amount of time to happen.

So if you have this kind of problem with infinity, you should probably reconsider your god.

And not only that, but to think that the universe began in a dense-hot state at which there was no life, intelligent, and consciousness, and to think that life, intelligence, and conciousness could have resulted from that.....that takes a lot of faith.

Life(under certain context), intelligence and consciousness are subjective terms. They're based off what our mind experiences. They're not rooted into technicality.

Want to know how I solve that problem? I could drop them from my vocabulary as they're unscientific.

The non-subjective term of life is the biological term, and it simply refers to lumps of matter that function to preserve their system. What we think of as intelligence and consciousness is completely subjective.

So if the expansion of the singularity was also the expansion of space itself, before the expansion, what space did the singularity occupy? Makes no sense.

Points don't occupy space as they have no size.

The absurdity of infinity applies to advanced aliens as well.

But you don't solve any problem with infinity with a God as he's infinite as well.

In the same way you prefer to believe that humans are apes.

Not really. It wouldn't bother me more if we discovered that humans are felines.

I don't have a preference of what taxonomic family humans belong to. I simply go with what the data shows. Genetics, paleontology, comparative anatomy and countless other groups of studies independently point to humans being apes.

But it would still be natural law, Andro.

This is just semantics. If someone were to legitimately prove God exists, God would be considered natural, by definition.

 

[Sapiens]

Dog kind...cat kind...fish kind...snake kind...bear kind..bird kind..kind, kind, kind.

Genesis 1:21 "So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind....verse 24.......God said "let the land producel iving creatures according to their kinds; livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, according to their kinds".

The book of Genesis was written over 3,000 years ago, fast forward to 8-11-14, and what do we see? We see animals producing after their kind...we see dogs producing dogs, cats producing cats, fish producing fish.

Seems pretty self explanatory to me.

Here you display a basic misunderstanding of evolution. No on has ever claimed that dogs produce cats (or the opposite). The evolutionary model says that about 50 million years ago the carnivorid line (neither dog, nor cat) split into two lineages (likely due to geographical separation), the caniforms (that over time became dog-like) and feliforms (that over time became cat-like). Ten million years later, the first proper "dogs" had appeared and that family had split into three subfamilies, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. Only the last of these survive. (edited from wiki: Candidae).

So neither turned into the other, they are more like two prongs on a fork.

 

[SkepticThinker]

They share a common designer.

So humans are apes?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

It existed for we don't know how long.

Learn to say "I don't know." Repeat it out loud until you're comfortable saying it.

Sometimes saying "I don't know" isn't good enough. When you have two possibilities, and one is logically absurd, the other one wins by default...so saying "I don't know" is basically saying "I refuse to acknowledge the fact that this is an because even this absurdity is more pleasing to believe than the God hypothesis".

No, I didn't say anything like that.

Then as I asked, what was the point of you mentioning QM then? I said that everything that begins to exist has a cause, and you brought up QM as if that was a defeater of what I said. Why did you mention it then if that isn't what you meant?

What's absurd about it?

If the past is eternal, then the present moment could never come to past...the fact that the present moment did come to past, there must be a past-boundary to time. See how that works?

One could say aliens did it, and it would be equally as valid/invalid.

Anyone can come up with an endless amount of reasons other than god. The concept of god is nothing special.

The cause had to be immaterial and extremely powerful, powerful enough to create a universe from nothing. If you want to think the cause was aliens, then fine...then these aliens would be Gods...so as mentioned, you are left with theism at the very least.

Welcome to the world of Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't make a lick of sense, yet it seems to be undeniably true.

What seems undeniably true? I understand that in order to keep up with your unbelief you have to believe in logical absurdities, and you must allow these absurdities to be true to you...but in reality, logical absurdities cannot happen.

You can't expect everything in life to make sense. It's naive.

What I expect is for there to be a scientific explanation for everything that naturally occur.

See this is your problem. You don't take things as is. You reinterpret it to mean more than what it is.

So the problem for me is I over-analyze...and the problem for you is you under-analyze.

Where do I say it was hot and dense forever?

Or better yet, where did the singularity come from in the first place...if it existed forever, you have to explain why did it suddenly begin to expand despite the fact that there were no pre-external conditions that will allow it to do so...and if you think that there were pre-external conditions, then you are right back to the wacky world of absurdities, because of infinite regressions.....as these conditions would have to exist in time, and time cannot be infinite.

Uphill battle.

I simply said it had this state 13 billion years ago. The state it was in prior to this is anyone's guess; whether it collapsed into this state from a less dense expanded universe, whether it was completely non-existent or whether it was made of chocolate.

But it was at this state 13 billion years ago.

Sorry, but that isn't good enough. The problem of infinity is not take care of on this view. It doesn't matter what you posit, because you can't deny that whatever happened had to happen in time...and unless there is an absolute beginning time time...then you are stuck with infinite regression, which cannot happen in reality.

Because it already was 12 billion years ago at one time. It already was 10 billion(or just 10) at one time. If you wait a billion years, it will be 14 billion years ago, then you'll be asking why it wasn't 13 billion.

Exactly, according to science, it expaned 13.7 billion years ago...so for it to expand at that exact time...why? Why not sooner? Why not later? What happened for it to expand at that moment in time and not another time? If the past is eternal then there is no answer to this...

If someone has been counting down from infinity and just arrived at the #1, then why did this person JUST finish counting? Why not sooner? Why not later? The person had an infinite amount of time to finish counting...so why did the person just finish counting?

Makes no sense.

No, all I said is it had this state 13 billion years ago. You added the assumption that it was this way prior to the rapid expansion forever before it.

You should try not to add assumptions. Maybe things will make more sense.

Look, either it existed for eternity and suddenly expanded 13.7 billion years ago, or it began to exist from a state of non-existence (without God)...either way, both options are equally absurd, and if you negate the existence of God, you are stuck with these absurdities.

You can say "I don't know" all you want, but that isn't helping the naturalistic side of things.

Space-time was curved in onto it self, and it's wholly due to mass and energy. So it's contradictory to say there was no mass and energy.

Infinity problem.

No one said it didn't happen sooner or later.

It doesn't matter when it happened, the question is, why did it happen whenever it did happen.

Also, how does an infinite deity solve that?

When we say God is "infinite" we don't mean it in a quantitative sense, but a qualitative sense, so therefore, the problem of infinite does not apply to God as it does in a universe that existed infinitely in time.

Why didn't he make the Universe 10 billion years ago?

Because with God, there is a thing called "free will" and a free agent can freely create the universe whenever he pleased, just like you can freely engage in this discussion as you please.

And the concept of God is no different.

No, because no one is arguing that God existed eternally in time.

He existed for eternity, and it took him an eternity to decide to make a universe.

He existed eternally, but not eternally in time..there is a difference. Before creation, there was no time...and God existed in a atemporal state...after creation, God stepped in to time, and has been temporal ever since. But the point is, God created time...he got the ball rolling. And this is the only logical explanation if one is to avoid the problem of infinity.

In fact, the concept of God is worse, because it means this is the first universe he ever made for the first time in eternity.

Dont see how that is worse...but...

At least with an infinite universe, any event that happened now could have happened an infinite number of times in the past, therefor NOT taking an infinite amount of time to happen.

Makes no sense.

So if you have this kind of problem with infinity, you should probably reconsider your god.

Again, God is not infinite in a quantitative sense.

Life(under certain context), intelligence and consciousness are subjective terms. They're based off what our mind experiences. They're not rooted into technicality.

Makes no sense.

Points don't occupy space as they have no size.

What?

But you don't solve any problem with infinity with a God as he's infinite as well.

Already answered.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Here you display a basic misunderstanding of evolution. No on has ever claimed that dogs produce cats (or the opposite). The evolutionary model says that about 50 million years ago the carnivorid line (neither dog, nor cat) split into two lineages (likely due to geographical separation), the caniforms (that over time became dog-like) and feliforms (that over time became cat-like). Ten million years later, the first proper "dogs" had appeared and that family had split into three subfamilies, Hesperocyoninae, Borophaginae, and Caninae. Only the last of these survive. (edited from wiki: Candidae).

So neither turned into the other, they are more like two prongs on a fork.

"Over time"..."10 million years later"...using time to fill in the gaps...."time of the gaps" reasoning :yes:

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Sometimes saying "I don't know" isn't good enough. When you have two possibilities, and one is logically absurd, the other one wins by default...so saying "I don't know" is basically saying "I refuse to acknowledge the fact that this is an because even this absurdity is more pleasing to believe than the God hypothesis".

I don't see how an infinite universe is logically absurd.

I said that everything that begins to exist has a cause

Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist from nothing, so it's a moot point.

If the past is eternal, then the present moment could never come to past...the fact that the present moment did come to past, there must be a past-boundary to time. See how that works?

Ehh... not sure what you're saying. I think you want the problem to be more complicated than it is.

You're making a bunch of empty claims that have never been demonstrated.

The cause had to be immaterial and extremely powerful, powerful enough to create a universe from nothing.

Like I said, no observation shows that the Universe came from nothing.

What seems undeniably true? I understand that in order to keep up with your unbelief you have to believe in logical absurdities, and you must allow these absurdities to be true to you...but in reality, logical absurdities cannot happen.

You're the only one here who thinks it's all logically absurd due to a lack of understanding of the physical world, and a limited amount of knowledge.

You're like a flat-earth believer who can't comprehend how people can stick to a round sphere without falling off.

What I expect is for there to be a scientific explanation for everything that naturally occur.

And if there isn't an explanation then... hur dur, goddidit?

So the problem for me is I over-analyze...and the problem for you is you under-analyze.

Reading what someone says and saying it means more than what it says isn't analyzing. It's a lack of comprehension skills.

I simply described what state the Universe had 13.7 billion years ago, and you took that as me saying it was like that for eternity.

Or better yet, where did the singularity come from in the first place...

Like I said, we only know that it had this state at the time. We don't know why.

if it existed forever, you have to explain why did it suddenly begin to expand despite the fact that there were no pre-external conditions that will allow it to do so.

Ugh... citation?

time cannot be infinite.

Why not?

Exactly, according to science, it expaned 13.7 billion years ago...so for it to expand at that exact time...why? Why not sooner? Why not later?

I already answered this. 1 billion years ago, it was sooner. 1 billion years later, it'll be later.

What happened for it to expand at that moment in time and not another time?

There is no "another time" when talking about infinite. If it happened "later" it would make zero difference. So I don't see the problem.

If someone has been counting down from infinity and just arrived at the #1, then why did this person JUST finish counting? Why not sooner? Why not later?

Because there is no absolute sooner or later. Time is relative, just like space.

If said person did finish later, it wouldn't be later in any absolute sense. It would only be later relative to a given position in time. If you don't think relative time makes sense, then you must not think relative space makes sense.

If you say you're five feet away, you have to say you're five feet away from a given position in space. No one is simply five feet away. THAT makes no sense. Likewise, an event doesn't simply happen sooner or later. It happens sooner or later relative to a given position in time. So it doesn't make sense to ask why The Big Bang didn't happen sooner, in the same way that it doesn't make sense to ask why I'm five feet away and not six feet. Six feet away from what?

It doesn't matter when it happened, the question is, why did it happen whenever it did happen.

Okay let me answer this in another way.

It happened 13 billion years ago relative to YOUR position in time. It didn't simply happen 13 billion years ago. To T.Rex, it happened 13 billion years ago minus 65 million years. Not a big difference, but you get the idea.

What you're really asking is, why are you in the particular position in time that you're in, not why did the Big Bang happen sooner or later.

The present is YOUR position in time. It's not some absolute reference point. In George Washington's position in time, the Big Bang happened slightly sooner.

When we say God is "infinite" we don't mean it in a quantitative sense

But is he infinite in a quantitative sense or no? If he's not, then he's finite in a quantitative sense. He can't be neither. Because that, guess what.... doesn't make sense.

Again God is not infinite in a quantitative sense.

So he's finite in a quantitative sense...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I don't see how an infinite universe is logically absurd.

It has been explained to you.

Nothing has ever been observed to begin to exist from nothing, so it's a moot point.

Life hasn't been observed to come from nonlife, but that hasn't stopped you from believing that.

Second, if you believe that there was this infinite chain of past-eternal cause and effect relations...then you are right back at the wacky world of infinity.

Ehh... not sure what you're saying. I think you want the problem to be more complicated than it is.

Not at all...the problem is complicated enough...I will ask you the same thing I asked others on here (and they have also failed to give an adequate answer). So for example...

Just take the event of your birth. In order for you to be born, your parents had to come in to contact right? But in order for your parents to come in to contact, your grandparents had to come in to contact...and in order for your grandparents to come into contact, your great-grandparents had to come into contact, and so on, and so forth...

Now, if that chain can be extended into eternity past, then the chain itself is infinitely long, right? But it is obvious that if the chain itself is infinitely long, then the point of your birth could never come to past, because in order for any person in the chain to be born, an infinite amount of parents had to be born in order to "reach" any parent.

So if the past is eternal, to reach the moment of your birth, infinity would have to have been traversed..but infinity cannot be traversed in that manner, just like it can't be traversed if I asked you to count to infinity...you would never reach "infinity" as a final destination, any more than your birth could be "reached" as a destination if there were an infinite number of births which preceded yours.

See how that works?

Now consider the universe as a whole...it is in a constant state of change...if the past is eternal, then no change X could ever occur, because for every change X, an infinite amount of changes would have had to occur in order to reach the present change X...but that can't be possible any more than your birth would be possible should an infinite number of births preceded yours.

However, if there is a past-boundary to time...a beginning...a beginning of ALL beginnings, it would be easy for your birth to come to past, because there would be a finite number of events that preceded it.

So for example, hypothetically speaking, if Adam was the first human, as many humans that were born after Adam, the humans that were born between Adam and the very last baby born today is STILL a finite number...since there was a beginning...a start of the "chain".

This is a big philosophical problem for you and those that hold your view...and as I keep stressing, it doesn't matter what any mathematician, biologists, physicists, cosmologists say...there had to have been a beginning of all beginnings, and that is exactly why Genesis 1:1 states "IN THE BEGINNING".

You're making a bunch of empty claims that have never been demonstrated.

Looks like to me I just did, and if you think otherwise, I would expect you to have no problems demonstrating how the event of your birth can come to past if there was an infinite number of events that preceded it.

Like I said, no observation shows that the Universe came from nothing.

Um, no one is claiming that the universe came from nothing...the claim is that the universe came from God, and I think I've just demonstrated why a timeless cause was necessary...and again, if you think otherwise, I will anxiously await for your response to the above question.

You're the only one here who thinks it's all logically absurd due to a lack of understanding of the physical world

The good thing about the infinity argument is, one doesn't need to have an understanding of the physical world. That is irrelevant. In fact, Christian apologists were using this argument long before contemporary cosmology...an argument which is still valid and sound today, btw.

and a limited amount of knowledge.

You're like a flat-earth believer who can't comprehend how people can stick to a round sphere without falling off.

If you cannot provide an adequate answer to the question above, then it will be clear that I am not the one with the limited amount of knowledge.

And if there isn't an explanation then... hur dur, goddidit?

Well, if nature didn't do it, who is the next candidate? Anything but the G word, right?

Reading what someone says and saying it means more than what it says isn't analyzing. It's a lack of comprehension skills.

I simply described what state the Universe had 13.7 billion years ago, and you took that as me saying it was like that for eternity.

I lack comprehension skills? Dude, first of all, if you don't believe in God, then unless you believe that the universe popped in to being out of nothing, then you HAVE to believe that it is eternal. It isn't as if there are a million and 1 possibilities...either it popped out of nothing, God created it, or it is eternal. You don't believe in God, and I will assume that you don't believe that it popped out of nothing, so the only answer that remains is an ETERNAL universe that never began to exist, and by "universe" I mean all natural reality.

So in essence, I rightfully "took that as you saying it was like that from eternity". Or, some natural entity created it...whatever, either way, nature existed from eternity on your view, should you negate the God hypothesis.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Like I said, we only know that it had this state at the time. We don't know why.

Well, based on the infinity problem, the question of "why" is irrelevant anyway.

Ugh... citation?

Unless you believe in a pre-big bang model, then there was nothing outside the universe that would cause it to expand, so the question of "why did it expand" is meaningless.

Why not?

It was just explained to you.

I already answered this. 1 billion years ago, it was sooner. 1 billion years later, it'll be later.

As about an inadeqate answer as one could give.

There is no "another time" when talking about infinite. If it happened "later" it would make zero difference. So I don't see the problem.

If a rock is resting on the ground, and literally NOTHING exist besides the rock and the ground that it is resting on..and the ground and the rock has existed in their stationary state for all eternity...then there is NOTHING that would allow the rock to move suddenly. If the rock does move, then the question is "why did it move at that PARTICULAR time" and not any moment prior, or any moments later...this question cannot be answered, because in order to answer it, you have to presuppose an external entity that would cause the rock to move.

See how that works? If the singularity existed for eternity in a hot and dense state, then why would it suddenly expand? If it had everything within it to cause it to expand 13.7 billion years ago, why didn't it expand 12.7 billion years ago...or 15.7 billion years ago? Nothing was added to it to make it expand, and nothing was taken away from it to make it expand...it had the same conditions from eternity past, yet, so why did it begin to expand when it did?

And like I said, it doesn't matter what answer you give anyway, because any answer you give, you will be right back to the infinity problem. So hey..

Because there is no absolute sooner or later. Time is relative, just like space.

"No absolute sooner or later". Makes no sense.

If said person did finish later, it wouldn't be later in any absolute sense. It would only be later relative to a given position in time. If you don't think relative time makes sense, then you must not think relative space makes sense.

Now who is complicating things? If someone goes to the store for you, and the store is right next door, yet, it takes the person 2 hours to get back to you, and you ask the person "what the hell took so long?" and the person replies "I arrived much later than you anticipated, but it isn't later in any absolute sense...it would only be later rleative to a give position in time".

Would you say "Oh by golly wow, you are correct!!! I was foolish to even question why it took you 2 hours to bring me my purchased items!!"

If you say you're five feet away, you have to say you're five feet away from a given position in space. No one is simply five feet away. THAT makes no sense. Likewise, an event doesn't simply happen sooner or later. It happens sooner or later relative to a given position in time. So it doesn't make sense to ask why The Big Bang didn't happen sooner, in the same way that it doesn't make sense to ask why I'm five feet away and not six feet. Six feet away from what?

Makes no sense. Either I am five feet away from any object in space, or I am not five feet away from any object in space. It is as plain and simple as that.

Okay let me answer this in another way.

It happened 13 billion years ago relative to YOUR position in time. It didn't simply happen 13 billion years ago. To T.Rex, it happened 13 billion years ago minus 65 million years. Not a big difference, but you get the idea.

That is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter WHEN it happened...the question is, WHY did it happen..no matter what time it happened the question of WHY would still remain. That is why when I asked "why didn't it happen sooner/later", the concept of "sooner or later" covered all and any possible times that it COULD have happened, but the question of "why" is independent of any given time X.

What you're really asking is, why are you in the particular position in time that you're in, not why did the Big Bang happen sooner or later.

The present is YOUR position in time. It's not some absolute reference point. In George Washington's position in time, the Big Bang happened slightly sooner.

And George Washington could have still asked "why didn't it happen sooner or later". See how it doesn't make a difference who asked it and when they asked it?

But is he infinite in a quantitative sense or no? If he's not, then he's finite in a quantitative sense. He can't be neither. Because that, guess what.... doesn't make sense.

If by "finite" in a quantitive sense you mean that God has only endured a finite amount of moments in time..then yes...the argument is that God was atemporal before creation, after creation he became temporal. No arguments there.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Unless you believe in a pre-big bang model, then there was nothing outside the universe that would cause it to expand, so the question of "why did it expand" is meaningless.

Then why do you keep asking the question if you think it's meaningless?

If a rock is resting on the ground, and literally NOTHING exist besides the rock and the ground that it is resting on..and the ground and the rock has existed in their stationary state for all eternity...then there is NOTHING that would allow the rock to move suddenly.

Nothing in classical physics, but a quantum event can cause it to move.

If the rock does move, then the question is "why did it move at that PARTICULAR time" and not any moment prior, or any moments later...this question cannot be answered, because in order to answer it, you have to presuppose an external entity that would cause the rock to move.

There is no "particular" time unless you have a references to another particular moment in time.

Your problem is you think time is absolute instead of relative.

Let me give you a spatial analogy. Why does that rock occupy that particular position in space? Why isn't it 3 feet to the left?

If the rock is floating in empty space, and the space around the rock is infinite in all direction, we can sit there and ask why it's in that particular position in space and not 3 feet to the left.

Same with positions in time.

Do you have a problem with relative space? If not, what's the big deal with relative time?

See how that works? If the singularity existed for eternity in a hot and dense state,

Again, that's an assumption. It existed in that state 13.7 billion years ago. That's as far as we go with it. It doesn't mean it was always like that.

then why would it suddenly expand? If it had everything within it to cause it to expand 13.7 billion years ago, why didn't it expand 12.7 billion years ago...or 15.7 billion years ago?

It's only 13.7 billion years ago relative to your position in time. You keep thinking your position in time is some absolute reference point.

Nothing was added to it to make it expand, and nothing was taken away from it to make it expand...it had the same conditions from eternity past, yet, so why did it begin to expand when it did?

Are you saying isolated systems can't change state or arrangement?

"No absolute sooner or later". Makes no sense.

Does an absolute three feet away make sense to you?

Now who is complicating things? If someone goes to the store for you, and the store is right next door, yet, it takes the person 2 hours to get back to you, and you ask the person "what the hell took so long?" and the person replies "I arrived much later than you anticipated, but it isn't later in any absolute sense...it would only be later rleative to a give position in time".

Would you say "Oh by golly wow, you are correct!!! I was foolish to even question why it took you 2 hours to bring me my purchased items!!"

He would be technically right. It's just that we're not use to people talking that way.

Same with space. If you have a friend that lives in Europe, and you live in America, you can ask "why do you live so far away?". They could respond with "I only live far away relative to your position in space." which is true, because there's plenty of people who live closer to him/her. It's just that no one talks like that.

Makes no sense. Either I am five feet away from any object in space, or I am not five feet away from any object in space. It is as plain and simple as that.

Exactly. You have to specify a given position in space, and you do it by pointing out an object occupying a given position in space. You can't simply say something is five feet away. Is the position of the object some absolute reference point or is it just some random position?

Same with events in time. For you to say the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, you have to use the present as your reference point.

The present is just your position in time. Like the object in a given space, your position in time isn't some absolute reference point.

If by "finite" in a quantitive sense you mean that God has only endured a finite amount of moments in time..then yes...the argument is that God was atemporal before creation, after creation he became temporal. No arguments there.

Doesn't sound like an all-powerful god then. Sounds like he has definitive limits.

 

[cottage]

Doesn't sound like an all-powerful god then. Sounds like he has definitive limits.

Yes, those were my thoughts too. It seems to me that every argument to God serves to undermine or whittle away at the concept.

 

[Sapiens]

He's missing the basic concepts. If you are in a plane moving at 600 miles an hour how far away is your point of origin? By the time you report it, it is further. Add to that the complexity that prior to the big bang there was no such dimension as time. We'll ... it gets a but confusing.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then why do you keep asking the question if you think it's meaningless?

It is meaningless in the sense that even if you are able to answer the question of "why", that still wouldn't in any way weaken the strength of the argument against infinity.

But nevertheless, if you are going to tell me that a singularity expanded 13.7 billion years ago, then the question of "why" is inescapable.

Nothing in classical physics, but a quantum event can cause it to move.

Literally nothing existed, besides space...there is just the rock and the ground that it is on...quantum events are nonexistent

There is no "particular" time unless you have a references to another particular moment in time.

There is no particular PRIOR moment at which you can reference...and if you posit a particular pre-big bang model, then there WERE moments prior to our big bang universe...thus, infinity problem.

Your problem is you think time is absolute instead of relative.

Regardless of whether you view time as absolute, or relative, the fact remains...infinity cannot be traversed.

Let me give you a spatial analogy. Why does that rock occupy that particular position in space? Why isn't it 3 feet to the left?

If the rock is floating in empty space, and the space around the rock is infinite in all direction, we can sit there and ask why it's in that particular position in space and not 3 feet to the left.

If the rock was stationary in empty space, and never moved, and as existed for eternity and literally nothing exists besides the rock and the space that the rock occupies, then the rock has a NECESSARY existence...and the question is "why" does not apply..so it would be impossible for the rock to move, because there are no pre-deterministic conditions that will allow it to move.

Do you have a problem with relative space? If not, what's the big deal with relative time?

I have a problem with infinite regression.

Again, that's an assumption. It existed in that state 13.7 billion years ago. That's as far as we go with it. It doesn't mean it was always like that.

So what is the opposite of "existing for eternity"......."[not] existing for eternity"...so if the singularity didn't exist for eternity, then there has to be a reason why it exists, thus, you are pushing the question of origins one more step backwards.

Now, if that is to difficult for you to understand, then I can't help you.

It's only 13.7 billion years ago relative to your position in time. You keep thinking your position in time is some absolute reference point.

Even If I began to exist a year after the big bang, I could still ask "why did the singularity expand only a year ago".

For the second time, it doesn't matter what point was relative to the big bang, pick any point...and the same question can be asked.

Are you saying isolated systems can't change state or arrangement?

As far as we know, our universe is a closed system. There is nothing outside it replenishing the energy that it is losing, and will soon lose...so therefore it is a closed system.

Does an absolute three feet away make sense to you?

No.

He would be technically right. It's just that we're not use to people talking that way.

So while you are waiting for your next check to get cashed or your next direct deposit, and it takes the bank 30 years to cash it or deposit it, and they give you that answer, I wonder would you accept that answer.

Same with space. If you have a friend that lives in Europe, and you live in America, you can ask "why do you live so far away?". They could respond with "I only live far away relative to your position in space." which is true, because there's plenty of people who live closer to him/her. It's just that no one talks like that.

Irrelevant.

Exactly. You have to specify a given position in space, and you do it by pointing out an object occupying a given position in space. You can't simply say something is five feet away. Is the position of the object some absolute reference point or is it just some random position?

Same with events in time. For you to say the Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, you have to use the present as your reference point.

For the third time...it doesn't matter when it happened, the question is, why did it happen when it did...i could have asked the question one second after it happened, one minute...one hour..one day...etc...either way, the question remains, why did it happen when it happened?

Doesn't sound like an all-powerful god then. Sounds like he has definitive limits.

Limits as far as what?

And btw, I completely noticed you ignored the whole "birth" analogy...which isn't surprising, I would have ignored it too if that was my default position.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Yes, those were my thoughts too. It seems to me that every argument to God serves to undermine or whittle away at the concept.

Then I'd like you to explain to me how does a God that exists in time make him "limited". Please explain.

 

[Sapiens]

"Over time"..."10 million years later"...using time to fill in the gaps...."time of the gaps" reasoning :yes:

If you want to play the God of the gaps game then please waste someone else's time. It's like saying your not related to you 20 times grandmother, whom I can ID by DNA because you can't name each and every intermediate ancestor.