Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

[Rise]

If you cannot the whole argument have everything to do with Craig’s conclusion to KCA (thus, “theism of god”), not on the premises alone or each premise individually, nor see there are no link between conclusion and premises together, as Craig have never prove...

"If you cannot the whole argument"?

Your whole statement doesn't even make enough grammatical sense for me to understand what you're trying to say. You need to retype it to be more clear. Otherwise I can't respond because your statement makes no sense.

...then, I am done. I have wasted enough of my time on a very useless and senseless KCA and on you.

You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder to offer a counter argument against my arguments and you have failed to meet your burden of proof for your claims that were just assertion fallacies.

As a result you have conceded the debate.

 

[sayak83]

Vilenkin says you’re wrong. So where do you think he’s getting this idea that literally all the evidence we have points to the universe having a beginning?

Where do you think Krauss is getting the idea that all the evidence points to the universe having a beginning and that he thinks it probably did in his debate with Craig?


“We have no viable models of an eternal universe. The BGV theorem gives reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed”.
“The Beginning of the Universe,” Inference: International Review of Science ¼ (Oct. 23, 2015)
-Alexander Vilkenin

“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning”.
Cited in “Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event”, by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (Janurary 11, 2012).

The fact that the space-time universe had a beginning is not controversial or in dispute. So I don’t think that’s what you are trying to say.

If you are trying to dispute that the space-time universe had a beginning, then I can give the reasons for that. But I will assume that’s not what you are trying to do.

You must be trying to refer to whatever you think preceded the space-time universe.

Well, as I have shown in these posts, you run into various logical problems which necessitate concluding either the everything had a beginning point of something being created from literally nothing or there was an eternal state that a mind caused to change.



You can’t name one that doesn’t have fatal problems and isn’t subject to what I have already described here.



You are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.

You don’t disprove the truth of what I argued merely by pointing to someone who disagrees with it.



You have failed to meet your burden of rejoinder and committed the fallacy of argument by assertion.

Simply asserting my argument is wrong doesn’t make it so just because you assert it is so.

You need to be able to provide valid counter arguments to my arguments if you want to be able to claim my conclusion is supposedly wrong.



That doesn’t refute anything I argued. Especially with what I have elaborated on in these posts to show why you can’t get a materialistic eternal pre-universe state to work.



That’s not a journalist’s statement, it’s a journalist quoting Vilenkin.



Appealing to what other cosmologists believe by itself doesn’t disprove anything I have argued here.



I think this is where some miscommunication could be happening.

When I talk about the space-time universe I am talking about classical space time that is said to start with the big bang.

When I talk about the universe I am talking about the classical space time universe we observe and know. Not a theoretical construct of something prior to that which we have not observed and don’t know if it even exists

You are fallaciously begging the question when you try to claim the word 'universe" must include a prior quantum existence before the big bang when you don’t actually know that there was.

Vilenkin is also referring to the classical space-time universe when he is referring to the "universe" in his quotes. So my use of that term is in keeping with the way he used it.


You also run into major problems when you bring space-time into the quantum realm prior to the big bang

Because now the quantum space is subject to the same problems of it being impossible to have an infinite regress of time.

Any space time state cannot be past eternal because an infinite regress of time states is impossible to travel through.

That is why Vilenkin’s ideas try to create a place where space-time doesn’t exist so he can try to have an eternal state that doesn’t fall into a problem of an infinite regress of time or an infinite regress of causes for concrete objects.

He still runs into his own brand of infinite regress and necessary beginning problems, as I outlined above.

I do not have much time to reply on this. Two simple points:
1)Since classical physics is wrong and we know that quantum theory is the fundamental theory, therefore all space-time is actually quantized. This is a fact. The only thing here is we currently do not know exactly how it is quantized. So cosmologists try to appx. using the classical space time as far as possible. But all these sorts of no go theorems derived using classical space time are completely irrelevant as the space time we live in IS quantized.
2) Secondly infinite regress has no logical contradiction whatsoever. None. The idea that things move through time itself is fallacious. Time is a way to measure physical change, and change can be continuously occuring in a beginingless and endlessly eternal universe. Nothing actually moves from one time point to another. The states associated with every time point is a distinct new existence which has a structural relationship with other time points which are traditionally called its past. Thus there is zero contradiction here.
3) You are appealing to the authority of Vilenkin despite the fact that his proof is limited to the appx description limited to classical spacetime. So I am appealing to actual results obtained from current quantum gravity theories that show universe did not have a beginning. For example Loop Quantum Gravity based theories or string theory based calculations.
Universe May Have Started In A Big Bounce Rather Than A Big Bang, Scientists Say
Hence in the end Craig uses an outdated theorem and fallacious ideas of logical contradiction in his arguments. They do not hold water.

 

[paarsurrey]

Hitchens was wildly overrated as a thinker/debater

I have read his book " God is not Great ".

I am certain, as I observed, Hitchens had a very shallow knowledge of Islam/Quran/Muhammad. He could not quote even a single verse of Quran to establish his view point on Islam, please.
Right?

Regards

 

[Meow Mix]

I do not have much time to reply on this. Two simple points:
1)Since classical physics is wrong and we know that quantum theory is the fundamental theory, therefore all space-time is actually quantized. This is a fact. The only thing here is we currently do not know exactly how it is quantized. So cosmologists try to appx. using the classical space time as far as possible. But all these sorts of no go theorems derived using classical space time are completely irrelevant as the space time we live in IS quantized.
2) Secondly infinite regress has no logical contradiction whatsoever. None. The idea that things move through time itself is fallacious. Time is a way to measure physical change, and change can be continuously occuring in a beginingless and endlessly eternal universe. Nothing actually moves from one time point to another. The states associated with every time point is a distinct new existence which has a structural relationship with other time points which are traditionally called its past. Thus there is zero contradiction here.
3) You are appealing to the authority of Vilenkin despite the fact that his proof is limited to the appx description limited to classical spacetime. So I am appealing to actual results obtained from current quantum gravity theories that show universe did not have a beginning. For example Loop Quantum Gravity based theories or string theory based calculations.
Universe May Have Started In A Big Bounce Rather Than A Big Bang, Scientists Say
Hence in the end Craig uses an outdated theorem and fallacious ideas of logical contradiction in his arguments. They do not hold water.

I endorse this response. I have stuff to say on this but I’m talking to Rise in a different thread and don’t want to monopolize or be a burden. You are checking tons of boxes on what I’d say here though so I wanted to say that at least.

I’ll join the Kalam argument eventually when our other thread settles.

Also, did want to say there are significant constraints on quantization of spacetime from very distant GRB’s; if there is quantization it is likely to be very close to if not equal to the Planck scale.

 

[Rise]

I do not have much time to reply on this. Two simple points:
1)Since classical physics is wrong and we know that quantum theory is the fundamental theory, therefore all space-time is actually quantized. This is a fact. The only thing here is we currently do not know exactly how it is quantized. So cosmologists try to appx. using the classical space time as far as possible. But all these sorts of no go theorems derived using classical space time are completely irrelevant as the space time we live in IS quantized.

None of what you said there is relevant to refuting any specific argument I made.
You can't point to any specific argument I made and explain why you think what you said refutes it.

2) Secondly infinite regress has no logical contradiction whatsoever. None. The idea that things move through time itself is fallacious. Time is a way to measure physical change, and change can be continuously occuring in a beginingless and endlessly eternal universe. Nothing actually moves from one time point to another. The states associated with every time point is a distinct new existence which has a structural relationship with other time points which are traditionally called its past. Thus there is zero contradiction here.

You don't understand the nature of the infinite regress problem.

And what's interesting about your claim that it's not a problem, is that the same people you are trying to appeal to with regards to cosmology do think it's a problem. Vilenkin said in the very video you posted that he formulated his model specifically to try to avoid infinite regress.

Well, why would he need to bend over backwards to avoid an infinite regress if, as you claim, it isn't actually a problem?

Why do you think Krauss and Carroll never tried to dispute Craig's premise that an infinite regress was not possible?

Why do you think cosmology is trying to avoid an infinite regress in their hypothetical models if it's not a problem for them?

It could certainly make life a lot easier for them to mathematically model something using an infinite regress. But they can't do it because what works in abstract math doesn't necessarily translate to work in concrete reality.


A sequence of casually related state changes or events still has the exact same infinite regress problem. You haven't gotten around it by talking about things physically moving from one point to another in a space called time.

If you were to trace back the sequence of state changes infinitely back you would never be able to arrive at the starting point because it is infinite in number. Which is also why if you were at the starting point, infinitely back, it would be impossible to arrive at the current state.

Any circumstance that involves a process of one thing happening after another, or one thing depending on the previous thing, it is logically impossible to traverse from an infinite beginning to the present state.

That is why the only way you can make an eternal pre-universe state exist is by trying to posit something that doesn't actually change. But if it doesn't change then what would ever cause it to change to create the universe?

That's why science hated the big bang theory when it was developed and resisted it for as long as they could. They couldn't pretend the universe was eternal anymore. Now they had an infinite regress paradox that they knew required God to solve.

3) You are appealing to the authority of Vilenkin despite the fact that his proof is limited to the appx description limited to classical spacetime. So I am appealing to actual results obtained from current quantum gravity theories that show universe did not have a beginning.

Your claim is demonstrably false.

To understand why what I have said was not a fallacious appeal to authority, we need to look back at what you said to understand why it actually was both the fallacious appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.



You said:

Obviously every cosmologist disagrees with you, including Vilenkin.


You were responding to me saying:

We have no evidence to suggest any other conclusion is logically possible.
Neither of those of conclusions can be explained by materialistic atheism.
The only explanation we currently do have that could fit the criteria in either situation is a creator with a mind.


Your response offered no evidence that any other current conclusion is workable from a materialistic standpoint.

All you did was point to someone and say "they disagree with you".

That is the very definition of a fallacious appeal to authority because you are substituting not having your own argument for simply citing an authority's viewpoint.


You said:

Vilenkin may believe this, but other cosmologists do not.


You were responding to Vilenkin's quote I gave which is:

“There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning”


Again, you offer no reason why we should think there is a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning to refute what Vilenkin said - you merely fallaciously appeal to the fact that someone else disagrees with his conclusion.




Moving on then to your false claim that I supposedly committed a fallacious appeal to authority:

Your claim can be demonstrated to be false by pointing out that you cannot quote any specific thing I said and give specific reasons why it would qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

No where did I quote someone for support without also offering my own argument for that conclusion.

In every case I merely use their quotes to directly support an argument I am making in that response to your quote.

For example Loop Quantum Gravity based theories or string theory based calculations.
Universe May Have Started In A Big Bounce Rather Than A Big Bang, Scientists Say

I already addressed the big bounce in my previous posts to you. You have not attempted to refute my arguments. Therefore, my arguments still stand.

You also have given no specific reasons why any of those theories would refute any specific argument I have made here, nor any specific argument Craig has made.

Therefore, you are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion - merely asserting these theories prove Craig wrong without giving any evidence or reasons for why they supposedly would.

Hence in the end Craig uses an outdated theorem and fallacious ideas of logical contradiction in his arguments. They do not hold water.

You cannot point to any specific argument Craig made and give specific reason why anything he said was false or illogical in any way.

You have not met the burden of proof for your claim that Craig's ideas are either false or in logical contradiction.

Therefore your statement does not represent a valid counter argument and can be dismissed as being just your opinion.

 

[Rise]

@Meow Mix

Just wanted to let you know I am still planning to respond to your posts in this thread. I was just prioritizing the other thread first.

I hope you don't take it as a sign of devaluing your posts that I have saved them until last. But it is actually a sign of respect for them that I wanted to save them for later so I could have more time to research the issues in more depth before responding.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder and argument by assertion.

Merely asserting by implication your case is proven doesn't make it so just because you assert it.
You cannot provide arguments or evidence that has not been refuted to prove your claims are true. Nor can you offer valid counter arguments in defense of your claims.

By failing to offer counter arguments in defense of your arguments, you have failed your logical burden of rejoinder.

If you are unwilling to meet your burden of rejoinder then you have tacitly conceded the debate.

You've demonstrated my case for me.
So, thanks!

 

[Rise]

You've demonstrated my case for me.
So, thanks!

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming your argument is true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.
You cannot give specific reasons or evidence for any of your claims being true.

 

[paarsurrey]

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.
Merely claiming your argument is true doesn't make it true just because you assert it is so.
You cannot give specific reasons or evidence for any of your claims being true.

It is a " Science and Religion " forum, why use philosophical terms here, please ?

Regards

 

[Rise]

It is a " Science and Religion " forum, why use philosophical terms here, please ?

Regards

Your question is logically incoherent.

Fallacy - Wikipedia
"A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, "

So you are effectively telling us you have a problem with people being required to use vaild reasoning to make their arguments, especially in a forum with "science" in the name.

Science requires logic/reason by definition to be called science. So it's logically incoherent for you to complain about the need for valid reason on a science forum.

It would actually be an incoherent position to take on any forum labeled as a debate forum. Because debate by definition is a process of logical arguments being exchanged to reach a conclusion. If you don't have logic you don't have a genuine debate by definition.

But the complaint becomes doubly incoherent when you're dealing with the topic of science, which prides itself on being logic based.

 

[paarsurrey]

Your question is logically incoherent.

Fallacy - Wikipedia
"A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, "

So you are effectively telling us you have a problem with people being required to use vaild reasoning to make their arguments, especially in a forum with "science" in the name.

Science requires logic/reason by definition to be called science. So it's logically incoherent for you to complain about the need for valid reason on a science forum.

It would actually be an incoherent position to take on any forum labeled as a debate forum. Because debate by definition is a process of logical arguments being exchanged to reach a conclusion. If you don't have logic you don't have a genuine debate by definition.

But the complaint becomes doubly incoherent when you're dealing with the topic of science, which prides itself on being logic based.

I don't agree with one.
There is a separate forum on "Philosophy", I don't mind of one uses such terminology in that forum to win debate, please.
Science is based on experiments and religion is based on Word of Revelation. Simple reason is sufficient here for understanding and make others understand without philosophical technicalities for the masses, I understand.
Philosophy and its dubious terminologies have nothing to do with Science and or Religion, much needed aspects of human life, I would say. Right?

Regards

 

[Rise]

I don't agree with one.
There is a separate forum on "Philosophy", I don't mind of one uses such terminology in that forum to win debate, please.

We are in a debate forum. So if you are ok with such terms in a debate forum then you can't complain about it in this forum.

Science is based on experiments and religion is based on Word of Revelation.
..
Philosophy and its dubious terminologies have nothing to do with Science and or Religion, much needed aspects of human life, I would say. Right?
s

You don't understand the nature of philosophy, logic, or it's relationship to science and religion.

1. Logic is required for the scientific method:

Logic - Wikipedia
Logic[1] is an interdisciplinary field which studies truth and reasoning. Informal logic seeks to characterize valid arguments informally, for instance by listing varieties of fallacies. Formal logic represents statements and argument patterns symbolically, using formal systems such as first order logic. Within formal logic, mathematical logic studies the mathematical characteristics of logical systems, while philosophical logic applies them to philosophical problems such as the nature of meaning, knowledge, and existence. Systems of formal logic are also applied in other fields including linguistics, cognitive science, and computer science.

Scientific method - Wikipedia
It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
...
The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.


You can't reason anything in science or talk about it without using logic.

So your objection to using logic in this thread, calling it only philosophy, and pretending it has no application of science, is absurd in the highest order.


2. All science requires philosophy to function. Science is based on certain philosophical presuppositions that are required for science to work (such as; math is true, we exist, our senses are reliable, etc). The reason they are philosophical and not scientific is because you can't prove those presuppositions are true using the scientific method. You must simply assume they are philosophically true and go from there.

Materialism, which many scientists ascribe to, is a philosophical worldview and not a scientific conclusion. You cannot prove materialism is true using the scientific method. You cannot prove theism is not true using the scientific method. You just presume materialism is true philosophically and go from there. But bad philosophy can lead to bad conclusions by preventing you from considering possibilities that your worldview doesn't allow for (such as an intelligent designer/creator).


3. Philosophy isn't isolated from religion either. You'd be hard pressed to find any religion that didn't use some form of philosophy to understand what it believes and justify it. The entire discipline of Christian theology is based on using philosophy/logic to understand religious revelation.
Anytime you see a debate take place over which religion is right you are seeing philosophy and logic in action, assuming they aren't just hurling insults at each other but attempting to make real arguments.

Philosophy and its dubious terminologies

You cannot quote a single term I have used here related to logic and give any specific reason why it would supposedly qualify as "dubious".

Your false characterization would fall under either the fallacy of an argument by assertion or a type of ad hominem.

The former because you are making an assertion without meeting your burden of proof to give reasons for your claim.
The second because you are effectively just calling an argument names because you can't show any fault with it.

Simple reason is sufficient here for understanding and make others understand without philosophical technicalities for the masses, I understand.

Saying that you have to give valid reasons to support your claim, and can't just wildly assert random things without proof, is as simple as reason gets.
It is the most basic level of reason required to have any kind of reasoned discourse or debate.
If you can't get that much right then it's over for you before you even get started.

Likewise, saying you need to give valid reasons for why an argument is wrong, instead of just using various forms of ad hominem attacks that are unrelated to the argument, is equally simple reason and the most basic of skills one must acquire to have any kind of legitimate reasoned discussion or debate.

These are probably the two most basic and simple of all reasoning requirements, yet ironically they are also the two most commonly ignored by most people online in my experience.

1. Give reasons for what you claim.
2. Attack the argument and not the person (or, if you're going to do the later, you at least need to attack the argument along with it).

Most people have never been trained in the basics of how to think and communicate at any point in public school. They think simply asserting things constitutes proving it. And they are habitualized to fall back on various forms of ad hominems when they can't prove their case with reason and evidence. As though they were still children trying to settle a schoolyard argument with insults.

 

[sayak83]

None of what you said there is relevant to refuting any specific argument I made.
You can't point to any specific argument I made and explain why you think what you said refutes it.



You don't understand the nature of the infinite regress problem.

And what's interesting about your claim that it's not a problem, is that the same people you are trying to appeal to with regards to cosmology do think it's a problem. Vilenkin said in the very video you posted that he formulated his model specifically to try to avoid infinite regress.

Well, why would he need to bend over backwards to avoid an infinite regress if, as you claim, it isn't actually a problem?

Why do you think Krauss and Carroll never tried to dispute Craig's premise that an infinite regress was not possible?

Why do you think cosmology is trying to avoid an infinite regress in their hypothetical models if it's not a problem for them?

It could certainly make life a lot easier for them to mathematically model something using an infinite regress. But they can't do it because what works in abstract math doesn't necessarily translate to work in concrete reality.


A sequence of casually related state changes or events still has the exact same infinite regress problem. You haven't gotten around it by talking about things physically moving from one point to another in a space called time.

If you were to trace back the sequence of state changes infinitely back you would never be able to arrive at the starting point because it is infinite in number. Which is also why if you were at the starting point, infinitely back, it would be impossible to arrive at the current state.

Any circumstance that involves a process of one thing happening after another, or one thing depending on the previous thing, it is logically impossible to traverse from an infinite beginning to the present state.

That is why the only way you can make an eternal pre-universe state exist is by trying to posit something that doesn't actually change. But if it doesn't change then what would ever cause it to change to create the universe?

That's why science hated the big bang theory when it was developed and resisted it for as long as they could. They couldn't pretend the universe was eternal anymore. Now they had an infinite regress paradox that they knew required God to solve.




Your claim is demonstrably false.

To understand why what I have said was not a fallacious appeal to authority, we need to look back at what you said to understand why it actually was both the fallacious appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.



You said:

Obviously every cosmologist disagrees with you, including Vilenkin.


You were responding to me saying:

We have no evidence to suggest any other conclusion is logically possible.
Neither of those of conclusions can be explained by materialistic atheism.
The only explanation we currently do have that could fit the criteria in either situation is a creator with a mind.


Your response offered no evidence that any other current conclusion is workable from a materialistic standpoint.

All you did was point to someone and say "they disagree with you".

That is the very definition of a fallacious appeal to authority because you are substituting not having your own argument for simply citing an authority's viewpoint.


You said:

Vilenkin may believe this, but other cosmologists do not.


You were responding to Vilenkin's quote I gave which is:

“There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning”


Again, you offer no reason why we should think there is a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning to refute what Vilenkin said - you merely fallaciously appeal to the fact that someone else disagrees with his conclusion.




Moving on then to your false claim that I supposedly committed a fallacious appeal to authority:

Your claim can be demonstrated to be false by pointing out that you cannot quote any specific thing I said and give specific reasons why it would qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

No where did I quote someone for support without also offering my own argument for that conclusion.

In every case I merely use their quotes to directly support an argument I am making in that response to your quote.



I already addressed the big bounce in my previous posts to you. You have not attempted to refute my arguments. Therefore, my arguments still stand.

You also have given no specific reasons why any of those theories would refute any specific argument I have made here, nor any specific argument Craig has made.

Therefore, you are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion - merely asserting these theories prove Craig wrong without giving any evidence or reasons for why they supposedly would.




You cannot point to any specific argument Craig made and give specific reason why anything he said was false or illogical in any way.

You have not met the burden of proof for your claim that Craig's ideas are either false or in logical contradiction.

Therefore your statement does not represent a valid counter argument and can be dismissed as being just your opinion.

Things do not move through time at all. Space-time is a coordinate system

None of what you said there is relevant to refuting any specific argument I made.
You can't point to any specific argument I made and explain why you think what you said refutes it.



You don't understand the nature of the infinite regress problem.

And what's interesting about your claim that it's not a problem, is that the same people you are trying to appeal to with regards to cosmology do think it's a problem. Vilenkin said in the very video you posted that he formulated his model specifically to try to avoid infinite regress.

Well, why would he need to bend over backwards to avoid an infinite regress if, as you claim, it isn't actually a problem?

Why do you think Krauss and Carroll never tried to dispute Craig's premise that an infinite regress was not possible?

Why do you think cosmology is trying to avoid an infinite regress in their hypothetical models if it's not a problem for them?

It could certainly make life a lot easier for them to mathematically model something using an infinite regress. But they can't do it because what works in abstract math doesn't necessarily translate to work in concrete reality.


A sequence of casually related state changes or events still has the exact same infinite regress problem. You haven't gotten around it by talking about things physically moving from one point to another in a space called time.

If you were to trace back the sequence of state changes infinitely back you would never be able to arrive at the starting point because it is infinite in number. Which is also why if you were at the starting point, infinitely back, it would be impossible to arrive at the current state.

Any circumstance that involves a process of one thing happening after another, or one thing depending on the previous thing, it is logically impossible to traverse from an infinite beginning to the present state.

That is why the only way you can make an eternal pre-universe state exist is by trying to posit something that doesn't actually change. But if it doesn't change then what would ever cause it to change to create the universe?

That's why science hated the big bang theory when it was developed and resisted it for as long as they could. They couldn't pretend the universe was eternal anymore. Now they had an infinite regress paradox that they knew required God to solve.




Your claim is demonstrably false.

To understand why what I have said was not a fallacious appeal to authority, we need to look back at what you said to understand why it actually was both the fallacious appeal to authority and appeal to popularity.



You said:

Obviously every cosmologist disagrees with you, including Vilenkin.


You were responding to me saying:

We have no evidence to suggest any other conclusion is logically possible.
Neither of those of conclusions can be explained by materialistic atheism.
The only explanation we currently do have that could fit the criteria in either situation is a creator with a mind.


Your response offered no evidence that any other current conclusion is workable from a materialistic standpoint.

All you did was point to someone and say "they disagree with you".

That is the very definition of a fallacious appeal to authority because you are substituting not having your own argument for simply citing an authority's viewpoint.


You said:

Vilenkin may believe this, but other cosmologists do not.


You were responding to Vilenkin's quote I gave which is:

“There are no models at this time that provide a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning”


Again, you offer no reason why we should think there is a satisfactory model for a universe without a beginning to refute what Vilenkin said - you merely fallaciously appeal to the fact that someone else disagrees with his conclusion.




Moving on then to your false claim that I supposedly committed a fallacious appeal to authority:

Your claim can be demonstrated to be false by pointing out that you cannot quote any specific thing I said and give specific reasons why it would qualify as a fallacious appeal to authority.

No where did I quote someone for support without also offering my own argument for that conclusion.

In every case I merely use their quotes to directly support an argument I am making in that response to your quote.



I already addressed the big bounce in my previous posts to you. You have not attempted to refute my arguments. Therefore, my arguments still stand.

You also have given no specific reasons why any of those theories would refute any specific argument I have made here, nor any specific argument Craig has made.

Therefore, you are committing the fallacy of argument by assertion - merely asserting these theories prove Craig wrong without giving any evidence or reasons for why they supposedly would.




You cannot point to any specific argument Craig made and give specific reason why anything he said was false or illogical in any way.

You have not met the burden of proof for your claim that Craig's ideas are either false or in logical contradiction.

Therefore your statement does not represent a valid counter argument and can be dismissed as being just your opinion.

Can you find a mathematical contradiction with a past infinite universe? If not then it's not contradictory. Mathematical relations are necessarily logically valid. If a consistent mathematical theory exists for a past eternal universe (and it does... see loop quantum cosmology), then there cannot be any logical contradiction with a past eternal universe regardless of what someone like Craig says.
Second. Things do not move through time at all. Time is defined by correlating between different kinds of change of state of physical systems.

Cosmologists do not care about infinite regress at all, as it has no mathematical contradiction. Here us yet another mathematical consistent cyclic univese model just to demonstrate.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-simulations-challenge-the-big-bang-20200804/
Frankly these ancient so called classical logical contradictions have no relevance to physics and reality as quantum theory has shown.

 

[paarsurrey]

We are in a debate forum. So if you are ok with such terms in a debate forum then you can't complain about it in this forum.




You don't understand the nature of philosophy, logic, or it's relationship to science and religion.

1. Logic is required for the scientific method:

Logic - Wikipedia
Logic[1] is an interdisciplinary field which studies truth and reasoning. Informal logic seeks to characterize valid arguments informally, for instance by listing varieties of fallacies. Formal logic represents statements and argument patterns symbolically, using formal systems such as first order logic. Within formal logic, mathematical logic studies the mathematical characteristics of logical systems, while philosophical logic applies them to philosophical problems such as the nature of meaning, knowledge, and existence. Systems of formal logic are also applied in other fields including linguistics, cognitive science, and computer science.

Scientific method - Wikipedia
It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.
...
The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.


You can't reason anything in science or talk about it without using logic.

So your objection to using logic in this thread, calling it only philosophy, and pretending it has no application of science, is absurd in the highest order.


2. All science requires philosophy to function. Science is based on certain philosophical presuppositions that are required for science to work (such as; math is true, we exist, our senses are reliable, etc). The reason they are philosophical and not scientific is because you can't prove those presuppositions are true using the scientific method. You must simply assume they are philosophically true and go from there.

Materialism, which many scientists ascribe to, is a philosophical worldview and not a scientific conclusion. You cannot prove materialism is true using the scientific method. You cannot prove theism is not true using the scientific method. You just presume materialism is true philosophically and go from there. But bad philosophy can lead to bad conclusions by preventing you from considering possibilities that your worldview doesn't allow for (such as an intelligent designer/creator).


3. Philosophy isn't isolated from religion either. You'd be hard pressed to find any religion that didn't use some form of philosophy to understand what it believes and justify it. The entire discipline of Christian theology is based on using philosophy/logic to understand religious revelation.
Anytime you see a debate take place over which religion is right you are seeing philosophy and logic in action, assuming they aren't just hurling insults at each other but attempting to make real arguments.




You cannot quote a single term I have used here related to logic and give any specific reason why it would supposedly qualify as "dubious".

Your false characterization would fall under either the fallacy of an argument by assertion or a type of ad hominem.

The former because you are making an assertion without meeting your burden of proof to give reasons for your claim.
The second because you are effectively just calling an argument names because you can't show any fault with it.




Saying that you have to give valid reasons to support your claim, and can't just wildly assert random things without proof, is as simple as reason gets.
It is the most basic level of reason required to have any kind of reasoned discourse or debate.
If you can't get that much right then it's over for you before you even get started.

Likewise, saying you need to give valid reasons for why an argument is wrong, instead of just using various forms of ad hominem attacks that are unrelated to the argument, is equally simple reason and the most basic of skills one must acquire to have any kind of legitimate reasoned discussion or debate.

These are probably the two most basic and simple of all reasoning requirements, yet ironically they are also the two most commonly ignored by most people online in my experience.

1. Give reasons for what you claim.
2. Attack the argument and not the person (or, if you're going to do the later, you at least need to attack the argument along with it).

Most people have never been trained in the basics of how to think and communicate at any point in public school. They think simply asserting things constitutes proving it. And they are habitualized to fall back on various forms of ad hominems when they can't prove their case with reason and evidence. As though they were still children trying to settle a schoolyard argument with insults.

If one wants to debate simply for winning, let one win.
Now describe the things in a simple way useful to understand for an ordinary man in the street, please.

Regards

 

[SkepticThinker]

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of proof and rejoinder.

Unable to answer my arguments, and admitting you are unwilling to try, you have conceded the debate in my favor.

You are also guilty of the fallacy of males fides. By claiming you are unwilling to read the arguments of your opponent which disproved your claims you have admitted you were never debating in good faith.

 

[Rise]

Things do not move through time at all. Space-time is a coordinate system

...
Second. Things do not move through time at all. Time is defined by correlating between different kinds of change of state of physical systems.

I already already refuted your claim that your description of time doesn't have problems with an infinite number of past state changes being impossible.

You ignored what I said which refuted your claim and merely repeated your original claim, which is a fallacy of repetition.

Can you find a mathematical contradiction with a past infinite universe? If not then it's not contradictory. Mathematical relations are necessarily logically valid.

You don't understand that the nature of abstract mathematics allows for the construction of mathematically valid concepts that have no possible relationship to concrete reality.

Although there can be an infinite number of abstract objects in a mathematical formulation, in reality there are many reasons this doesn't work.

One example I already gave, which you ignored, is that if there were an infinite number of state changes and you started at the beginning then you could never arrive at the present state. You have not attempted to refute that. Therefore my conclusion remains standing against your claim.



To that I can add another example that helps demonstrate why this can't work in reality; The grim reaper paradox.
Starting at 8am, at 9am a grim reaper will activate to kill a particular individual if they are still alive.
But at every halfway point prior to that another grim reaper will activate to kill the target if they are still alive. Ie. One at 8:30am, another at 8:15, etc.

It's impossible for the target to survive until 9am, yet no specific grim reaper is capable of actually killing the target because it divides infinitely without ever coming to an end.

Mathematically you could probably write this out as a valid abstract formula. But it doesn't translate into something that works in concrete reality.
It is physically impossible to traverse an infinite series of events or states to any given point.



Other examples that show the absurdity of an actual number of concrete objects in the universe:

Let's say you had an infinite number of actual objects lined up in the universe.

You have an infinite number of objects lined up in front of you. You double the number of objects lined up in front of you. How many do you have now? Infinity. The same number as you started with. et there are twice as many objects. But math says you have the same number of objects.

What if you take an infinite number of objects in a line and you cut every even numbered one out. How many would you have?
So infinity - infinity = infinity.

What if you removed all the objects?
Infinity - infinity = zero.

What if you removed all objects but 10 of them?
Infinity - infinity = 10.

How long will it take man A to count to infinity? Infinity.
How long will it take man B to counter to infinity if he counts 100,000 times faster? Infinity.
Mathematically the same answer, but in terms of reality we know one should be faster than the other.

So the exact same equation gives you different answers. A logical absurdity and an impossibility in reality.
This is a case where math is telling you things that wouldn't line up with reality.


But we can take that example further and show why the task itself cannot be physically undertaken:
You would never be able to arrive at the end of the equation because you would spend an infinite amount of time trying to add and subject infinity from the equation.

Infinity as an actual number of things also cannot exist because you could never arrive at the point where you could create an infinite number of objects to add to the equation. You'd never arrive at the point at which you had achieved creating an infinite number of objects. It would take you an infinite mount of time - which could never be reached.


We can take this further and say that true infinity, with regards to sets of objects (such as sequential numbers), doesn't even exist in math. Which refutes your claim that infinity is consistent with math. You might represent the concept of infinity with a symbol - but you can't actually calculate using an infinite number of objects. You'd never be able to arrive at the end point in order to complete your equation because there is no end point. Not that I am referring to math with regards to an infinite set of numbers/objects, not math with regards to an equation that cycles around repeating itself infinitely (such as an equation that generates fractals patterns).

This is similar to the grim reaper paradox whereby the equation is stuck in a loop where it can't be solved because it's waiting for an infinite number to reach an end point but it never can.

If a consistent mathematical theory exists for a past eternal universe (and it does... see loop quantum cosmology), then there cannot be any logical contradiction with a past eternal universe regardless of what someone like Craig says.

There are two problems with your claim:

1. You are operating from the fallacy that mathematically proven ideas are proven to exist in reality. The examples I gave above should be sufficient to demonstrate that is not always the case.

Another example that comes to mind is Hawking could use imaginary numbers to remove the troublesome singularity behind the creation of the universe from his equations, but then his equations no longer reflected reality so therefore wasn't useful to describe anything. When his equations were converted back to real numbers to reflect reality the singularity reappeared.

You can use math tricks to prove all manner of absurd things that don't conform to physical reality.


2. Loop quantum cosmology can't be past eternal because you can't solve the entropy problem of the second law of thermodynamics. You can't explain why the whole system wouldn't eventually break down over an infinite amount of time to rest at an entropy equilibrium. It would have had an infinite amount of time to do that. So our current universe should already be at such a state if the hypothesis were true.

And if it isn't past eternal then Craig's arguments all still apply.

Cosmologists do not care about infinite regress at all, as it has no mathematical contradiction.
...
Frankly these ancient so called classical logical contradictions have no relevance to physics and reality as quantum theory has shown.

You didn't answer the questions which refute your claim:
If what you claim is true, then why did Vilenkin in the video you posted explicitly say his theory operates a certain way to avoid an infinite regress?
Why do you think he sees this as something to be avoided?

Why do you think neither Krauss nor Carroll try to dispute Craig's claim that an infinite regress is logically impossible?
If they could then Craig's entire argument would be undermined.


Your claim that cosmologists don't care about the paradoxes caused by actual infinity in reality is disproven by looking at the theories they actually develop.

String theorist decided that one dimensional strings must have minimum planck distance so as to avoid the inherent problems of there being an infinite number of actual strings occupying a given space.

Loop quantum gravity, maintains a minimum distance between objects as well to avoid the problems associated with an infinite regress of smaller objects.

Why do you think they are avoiding this if it supposedly isn't a problem?

Here us yet another mathematical consistent cyclic univese model just to demonstrate.
Big Bounce Simulations Challenge the Big Bang

I already addressed big bounce models in a previous post. You did not attempt to refute any of my arguments but you just ignored them.

My conclusions remain standing as you have failed to challenge my arguments for those conclusions.

By ignoring my arguments and merely repeating your claim that the big bounce solves the problem, you are committing the fallacy of argument by repetition.

You do not refute my arguments against the big bounce by simply ignoring them and repeating your claim that the big bounce refutes my position.

 

[Rise]

Logical fallacy, failure of the burden of rejoinder.
By being unable and unwilling to offer a counter argument to my arguments you have tacitly conceded the debate.

 

[Rise]

If one wants to debate simply for winning, let one win.

Your statement is the logical fallacy of irrelevant conclusion.
It has no relevance to anything you are responding to.

Now describe the things in a simple way useful to understand for an ordinary man in the street, please.

You are not in a position to make demands about what needs to change because you have failed to show any logical fault with anything I have said or how I have said it.

You tried, and failed, to argue that there was something wrong with the words I was using or the logical and philosophical approaches I was taking.

Instead what you should have done is tried to take a humble approach and made a request that I explain things to you in a more simple way you are capable of understanding.

But if you are insecure about the fact that you don't understand something then you won't do that.
Instead what an insecure person would do is try to claim the other person is at fault and make demands that they change.

You are not taking responsibility for yourself.
You can educate yourself on what terms and concepts are. Google is at your fingertips.

If you are too lazy to do that then that's your choice - but that's on you. Other people aren't responsible for your choice. And other people aren't required to cater to your choice.

If you wanted people to cater to both your ignorance and your unwillingness to research, by retyping what they wrote just for you, then you would be expected to at least have a humble attitude about it, not demanding, recognizing that you aren't entitled to anything. No one owes you anything.

 

[sayak83]

I already already refuted your claim that your description of time doesn't have problems with an infinite number of past state changes being impossible.

You ignored what I said which refuted your claim and merely repeated your original claim, which is a fallacy of repetition.



You don't understand that the nature of abstract mathematics allows for the construction of mathematically valid concepts that have no possible relationship to concrete reality.

Although there can be an infinite number of abstract objects in a mathematical formulation, in reality there are many reasons this doesn't work.

One example I already gave, which you ignored, is that if there were an infinite number of state changes and you started at the beginning then you could never arrive at the present state. You have not attempted to refute that. Therefore my conclusion remains standing against your claim.



To that I can add another example that helps demonstrate why this can't work in reality; The grim reaper paradox.
Starting at 8am, at 9am a grim reaper will activate to kill a particular individual if they are still alive.
But at every halfway point prior to that another grim reaper will activate to kill the target if they are still alive. Ie. One at 8:30am, another at 8:15, etc.

It's impossible for the target to survive until 9am, yet no specific grim reaper is capable of actually killing the target because it divides infinitely without ever coming to an end.

Mathematically you could probably write this out as a valid abstract formula. But it doesn't translate into something that works in concrete reality.
It is physically impossible to traverse an infinite series of events or states to any given point.



Other examples that show the absurdity of an actual number of concrete objects in the universe:

Let's say you had an infinite number of actual objects lined up in the universe.

You have an infinite number of objects lined up in front of you. You double the number of objects lined up in front of you. How many do you have now? Infinity. The same number as you started with. et there are twice as many objects. But math says you have the same number of objects.

What if you take an infinite number of objects in a line and you cut every even numbered one out. How many would you have?
So infinity - infinity = infinity.

What if you removed all the objects?
Infinity - infinity = zero.

What if you removed all objects but 10 of them?
Infinity - infinity = 10.

How long will it take man A to count to infinity? Infinity.
How long will it take man B to counter to infinity if he counts 100,000 times faster? Infinity.
Mathematically the same answer, but in terms of reality we know one should be faster than the other.

So the exact same equation gives you different answers. A logical absurdity and an impossibility in reality.
This is a case where math is telling you things that wouldn't line up with reality.


But we can take that example further and show why the task itself cannot be physically undertaken:
You would never be able to arrive at the end of the equation because you would spend an infinite amount of time trying to add and subject infinity from the equation.

Infinity as an actual number of things also cannot exist because you could never arrive at the point where you could create an infinite number of objects to add to the equation. You'd never arrive at the point at which you had achieved creating an infinite number of objects. It would take you an infinite mount of time - which could never be reached.


We can take this further and say that true infinity, with regards to sets of objects (such as sequential numbers), doesn't even exist in math. Which refutes your claim that infinity is consistent with math. You might represent the concept of infinity with a symbol - but you can't actually calculate using an infinite number of objects. You'd never be able to arrive at the end point in order to complete your equation because there is no end point. Not that I am referring to math with regards to an infinite set of numbers/objects, not math with regards to an equation that cycles around repeating itself infinitely (such as an equation that generates fractals patterns).

This is similar to the grim reaper paradox whereby the equation is stuck in a loop where it can't be solved because it's waiting for an infinite number to reach an end point but it never can.




There are two problems with your claim:

1. You are operating from the fallacy that mathematically proven ideas are proven to exist in reality. The examples I gave above should be sufficient to demonstrate that is not always the case.

Another example that comes to mind is Hawking could use imaginary numbers to remove the troublesome singularity behind the creation of the universe from his equations, but then his equations no longer reflected reality so therefore wasn't useful to describe anything. When his equations were converted back to real numbers to reflect reality the singularity reappeared.

You can use math tricks to prove all manner of absurd things that don't conform to physical reality.


2. Loop quantum cosmology can't be past eternal because you can't solve the entropy problem of the second law of thermodynamics. You can't explain why the whole system wouldn't eventually break down over an infinite amount of time to rest at an entropy equilibrium. It would have had an infinite amount of time to do that. So our current universe should already be at such a state if the hypothesis were true.

And if it isn't past eternal then Craig's arguments all still apply.





You didn't answer the questions which refute your claim:
If what you claim is true, then why did Vilenkin in the video you posted explicitly say his theory operates a certain way to avoid an infinite regress?
Why do you think he sees this as something to be avoided?

Why do you think neither Krauss nor Carroll try to dispute Craig's claim that an infinite regress is logically impossible?
If they could then Craig's entire argument would be undermined.


Your claim that cosmologists don't care about the paradoxes caused by actual infinity in reality is disproven by looking at the theories they actually develop.

String theorist decided that one dimensional strings must have minimum planck distance so as to avoid the inherent problems of there being an infinite number of actual strings occupying a given space.

Loop quantum gravity, maintains a minimum distance between objects as well to avoid the problems associated with an infinite regress of smaller objects.

Why do you think they are avoiding this if it supposedly isn't a problem?




I already addressed big bounce models in a previous post. You did not attempt to refute any of my arguments but you just ignored them.

My conclusions remain standing as you have failed to challenge my arguments for those conclusions.

By ignoring my arguments and merely repeating your claim that the big bounce solves the problem, you are committing the fallacy of argument by repetition.

You do not refute my arguments against the big bounce by simply ignoring them and repeating your claim that the big bounce refutes my position.

Your repeating something does not make it true.
In an infinite sequence of states, the question of a beginning never arises. So the question of "how can we arrive at the current state from the beginning" never arises. Incoherent questions do not have an answer.
Entropy is a statistical concept and represents the expected probability of a given state compared to all other possible states having distinct macroscopic properties. Such a concept necessarily becomes defunct at Planck scale levels we are talking about in the Bouncing cosmologists as there are no macro states whatsoever. Hence entropy is necessarily reset at every bounce.
Actually Hartle-Hawkin no boundary model is still quite viable. It has not been refuted and remains a possible model of the universe.

 

[Rise]

Your repeating something does not make it true.

Your claim of a repetition fallacy is demonstrably false.

You never provided valid counter arguments to my arguments in any case where I repeated an argument. My conclusions still stand as valid because you never tried to refute it. You just ignored it. Therefore, if I have repeated anything, it is only so that you will address what I argued instead of committing the fallacy of "ignoring the issue".

In order for something to qualify as a fallacy of repetition, someone must ignore valid counter arguments and simply repeat their refuted argument - something which you are the one one to have done between the two of us.
You cannot quote any instance of me doing such a thing.

In an infinite sequence of states, the question of a beginning never arises. So the question of "how can we arrive at the current state from the beginning" never arises. Incoherent questions do not have an answer.

Your response demonstrates you don't even understand the nature of the infinite regress issue much less how to form a counter argument against it.
If you did understand it, you wouldn't think you could rebut the issue by saying "we don't need to worry how we got here because there was never a beginning".

I can try explaining this for you again, but more simply:
1. Our current state depends on a previous state to bring us to this point.
2. Each previous state depends on another state preceding it.
3. If our current state existing depends on traveling through all the previous states to get here, and the oldest state is an infinite amount of changes ago, then it would take an infinity to reach our current state.
4. We would never reach our current state because it is impossible to go through an infinite a state changes to reach a given state. As infinity, by definition, never ends.

The really bizarre thing here is you think that saying "we don't have a beginning" solves the problem.

Not having a beginning makes the problem worse for you - because there's literally no end point to the infinite past so it's literally impossible to reach the present.

That's why you only solve the problem of an impossible infinite regress by having a beginning.

Your response fails to understand the nature of the problem and falls under the fallacy of "not even wrong". Meaning, not only is it not a right answer, it's not even a wrong answer, because it fails to understand the nature of the issue at stake and what would constitute a valid true of false answer to the question.

Entropy is a statistical concept and represents the expected probability of a given state compared to all other possible states having distinct macroscopic properties.

Your definition of entropy doesn't disprove anything I argued. As such, it is a fallacy of irrelevant conclusion. You have demonstrated no relevance.

Your definition is also false by way of what it omits. Entropy is when energy based order/structure breaks down until everything reaches equilibrium.

Such a concept necessarily becomes defunct at Planck scale levels we are talking about in the Bouncing cosmologists as there are no macro states whatsoever. Hence entropy is necessarily reset at every bounce.

There are many problems with your claim.

1. You don't solve the infinite regress problem of our current state depending on an infinity of prior states, which would make the current state impossible to reach.

2. You have given no actual reasons for why you think a bounce cosmology can avoid entropy. Saying "because planck scale" isn't a reason. It's merely an assertion. So your answer constitutes a fallacy of argument by assertion because you are merely asserting that some magic happens with bounce cosmology to make it violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics without giving any attempt at explaining how or why you think that would be justified.

Actually Hartle-Hawkin no boundary model is still quite viable. It has not been refuted and remains a possible model of the universe.

The hawking-hartle model has a beginning singularity point - so it doesn't solve anything for you.
Instead of having a sharp point singularity it's simply a curved model like lines of longitude meeting at a point on the south pole.

The idea that the singularity disappears is based on converting the equation to use imaginary numbers to make time disappear but if you leave the equation in that state then it no longer reflects reality so it's not useful for describing anything about our reality.
When you convert it back to real numbers, which is necessary for the equation to mean anything to reality, the singularity reappears.

This is a perfect example of why your previous claim was false that just because something is mathematically valid that it must reflect reality.