|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, Quad),
595
guests, and 4
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76227
06/13/06 11:54
06/13/06 11:54
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Because we scientifically know that everything that has a beginning, has a cause.
We've already discussed this. This statement is scientificially nonsense. So I'm surprised to see you post it again. Bell's theorem was long ago proved. No cause is required for quantum events. As to the universe, it is in fact unlikely that it had an external cause. Almost all scientific hypotheses about the beginning of the universe either point towards an internal cause, like a phase transition, or to no cause at all.
If you still insist on it, can you give me a single serious scientific theory that assumes an "outside" cause for the beginning of the universe?
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76228
06/13/06 15:18
06/13/06 15:18
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quite an interesting link, however there are quite some things that don't add up ... Quote:
1. If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state where all usable energy is gone.
2. But, we are not in this state; therefore, the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning.
The very first statement is in error I think. The universe can be in mmmm, how do you say that, 'in harmony when it comes to energy production and consumption', so any loss of energy need not be when it's infinitely old.
I pretty much agree with the second statement though, if it's NOT infinite, then it must have had a beginning. That's quite rational.
However even if you believe in God as a being outside the realm of this universe, then the place he would be MUST be infinite too, otherwise God must have had a beginning.
(like you doubt the existance of the place of the other universes, I doubt this 'infinite' place a God would be.)
Well, unless you believe Gods can pop out of nowhere, like life can, then there's no problem. However since you believe that can't really happen, then that God must have had a creator. Quite rational too, don't you think?
Quote:
If it were infinitely old, the universe would be infinitely large, which it is not.
I guess this guy flew to all edges of the universe then ... How does he know?  I thought no true borders where discovered yet?
Quote:
There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old.
Circular reasoning, or at least so it seems to me. 'There can be no infinite events, because infinite events would mean an infinite place or universe for them to happen.' Well, the last part is quite questionable. Remember the line, with an infinite amount of points on it? Well the line itself has a finite touch to it, but what if all those infinite points on the line are infact events? I think infinite events can happen within a limited space, as the line example proves, besides I pretty much doubt the universe will implode into nothingness someday, so that makes the duration irrelevant (infinite).
Quote:
1. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence.
1. Otherwise, we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.
2. Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe.
1. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exist.
2. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe.
3. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
1. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than which it has caused to exist.
Yup, at first I thought he was going to admit that things can pop out of nowhere, because it would make sense at exactly that point, but no he goes for an 'uncaused cause'. Pfffff... Uncaused means not caused but still causing something to happen, how can something that has no cause cause something else? When he would do the math, he would see that 'something comming from nothing' is actually equal to 'an uncaused something causing things to happen'. But why should this uncaused something be 'greater in size and duration than what he 'creates''? God can be infinitely small too, if he would be infinite in the first place. Size get's rather irrelevant when something is infinite. Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.
I also kinda missed the part 'why' this uncaused cause would be God. Supernatural? Why put God outside of the natural? A rethorical question off course, since we can't find anything that truly leads to him/her/whatever.
Quote:
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite.
Infact it should be:
Quote:
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe.
Yes, and thus would mean this uncaused cause doesn't exist.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: JetpackMonkey]
#76230
06/14/06 05:41
06/14/06 05:41
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
JCL, maybe I wouldn't keep bringing up the same basic points if you would answer some of my objections. You ignored me, so I assumed you didn't have an answer (at least I didn't want to assume that you did have an answer when you hadn't given one).
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god?
[Re: jcl]
#76232
06/15/06 03:27
06/15/06 03:27
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
The very first statement is in error I think. The universe can be in mmmm, how do you say that, 'in harmony when it comes to energy production and consumption', so any loss of energy need not be when it's infinitely old.
If I understand correctly what you're saying here, you think that thermodynamics is a false?
Quote:
I pretty much agree with the second statement though, if it's NOT infinite, then it must have had a beginning. That's quite rational.
Great, that makes my position of an extra-universal cause quite rational then.
Quote:
(like you doubt the existance of the place of the other universes, I doubt this 'infinite' place a God would be.)
So do I. As soon as you use the word 'place' as anything other than a metaphor, you've just added the physical universe to God. In which case that would preclude an extra-universal cause (specifically God) to the universe.
Quote:
Well, unless you believe Gods can pop out of nowhere, like life can, then there's no problem.
I'll admit that I don't fully understand what God is. But I will admit that a grand nothingness makes less sense as a creator (assuming you think its logical that something infinitely less than our universe can create a universe). I think its easier to believe that something infinitely more than our universe could create something much less than itself, than something infinitely less than the universe could create something more than itself.
Quote:
I guess this guy flew to all edges of the universe then ... How does he know? I thought no true borders where discovered yet?
He's assuming that the expansion of the universe is true. The only way, if the universe is truly expanding, that it could be infinitely large is if it has been expanding for an infinite amount of time. In which case we run into the problem with thermodynamics again.
Quote:
Circular reasoning, or at least so it seems to me. 'There can be no infinite events, because infinite events would mean an infinite place or universe for them to happen.'
It would be circular reasoning had he not stated his case for disbelieving an infinite time or universe. In that case, he made a justification (that you're free to disagree with) that there cannot be an infinite regress of events to create the universe. In other words, he gave reasons for A which he believes leads to B. Had he used B to justify B, that would be circular.
Quote:
Well, the last part is quite questionable. Remember the line, with an infinite amount of points on it? Well the line itself has a finite touch to it, but what if all those infinite points on the line are infact events? I think infinite events can happen within a limited space, as the line example proves, besides I pretty much doubt the universe will implode into nothingness someday, so that makes the duration irrelevant (infinite).
Maybe its because I'm tired, but I'm having a hard time following what you're saying here.
However, he's saying that there would be time needed for each event, so infinite events = infinite time. So it goes back to his original argument about infinite time.
Quote:
Yup, at first I thought he was going to admit that things can pop out of nowhere, because it would make sense at exactly that point
Sense? Well...whatever, I'll have to 'pick my arguments' on this one.
Quote:
but no he goes for an 'uncaused cause'. Pfffff... Uncaused means not caused but still causing something to happen, how can something that has no cause cause something else?
If it exists without cause (I don't like to use the word exists, but I have to), then it exists. No duh, right? Well, if it exists, then why can this thing not cause something just because nothing caused this thing? You have to back up your claim that an uncaused cause cannot cause something, besides that you don't think it can.
An uncaused cause, by its namesake can cause.
Well, I suppose the burden of proof really isn't on you, but I don't think you've really given a good reason to doubt what he said.
Quote:
But why should this uncaused something be 'greater in size and duration than what he 'creates''?
How can something weaker and smaller than the universe bring the universe into existence? How would this cause even be able to fathom something that doesn't exist, but is greater than itself?
Quote:
God can be infinitely small too, if he would be infinite in the first place. Size get's rather irrelevant when something is infinite. Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.
Yes, size is irrelevant. However, I believe there's a flaw in something you just said.
Quote:
Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.
A God that is less than our universe would actually not be almighty. Not the other way around. If God is the opposite of infinite nothingness, then by definition he cannot create something greater than He because he is the 'greatest'.
Quote:
I also kinda missed the part 'why' this uncaused cause would be God.
Its a jump of faith, which I believe he admits. But its meant to be a critique of those who believe the universe popped up out of a vast and great nothingness.
Quote:
An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe.
Yes, and thus would mean this uncaused cause doesn't exist.
Doesn't exist naturally? Yes. That's why it would be a supernatural cause. Again, you're looking to the universe to explain something greater than the universe. I think this is faulty reasoning, but I don't know how to convince you not to think this way.
JCL, I'll have to read up on some stuff a bit more. But for now I'll continue what I believe that I can.
Quote:
3. The universe may have had an internal cause (f.i. multidimensional membrane collision) or no cause (f.i. spontaneous phase transition).
Ok, so we have some pre-universal state. What then caused this pre-universal state? Where do these membranes come from, or these 'phase transitions' that are spontaneous, in the first place? You're keep thinking you've reached the end of an infinite question. No matter how many times you find something simpler than what you understand to be the beginning, you still haven't found the beginning. And since we cannot recreate, anywhere in this universe, a complete void (no space time or matter, to see if a complete void can spawn some simple universe that eventually leads to ours) scientists will either have to admit that they can never know, or admit that there is a supernatural cause.
I find it entertaining to watch all of these theories about the beginning, and see that none of them has really brought us any closer. At the rate we're going, the universe will run out of useable energy, and we'll still have an infinite amount of questions to answer. Actually the death of our sun would be a more relevant end to humanity.
I still remember when the big bang was touted as the beginning. Then they said the universe had to fluctuate. Then there were multiple universes. And now there are membranes.
As far as uncaused...things. I would like to know how science proves something does not have a cause. As far as I remember you never really answered that question. I wondered how we can prove anything other than that we don't know the cause. I don't know how to prove a negative. It was like scientists 50 years ago proving that vestigial organs have no purpose. Surprise! They do.
Saying something can never have a cause is a dead end for reasoning, and as far as I'm concerned: anti-science. Maybe you can set me straight on this one.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god?
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76233
06/15/06 09:43
06/15/06 09:43
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
Chief Engineer
|
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Ok, so we have some pre-universal state. What then caused this pre-universal state? Where do these membranes come from, or these 'phase transitions' that are spontaneous, in the first place?
Both are completely different theories. The membrane model assumes an eternal space/time continuum of moving n-dimensional membranes. Imagine you have two 3-dimensional bubbles that intersect. The intersection area is first a point, then grows to a circle. If the bubbles are 4-dimensional, their intersection area - our universe - is a 3-dimensional sphere growing from a point. This is an oversimplification, but a better description of that model can be found for instance in the popular science books by the physicist Michio Kaku.
A phase transition happened, for instance, when the original force separated into the four forces known by physics, and caused the inflation of the universe in its first split second (this is not a hypothesis but just applied quantum theory). The hypothesis is that the origin of the universe itself was such a phase transition occurring in a cold, eternal, infinite 10-dimensional space, by the separating of our 3 spatial dimensions within a local, yet infinite area. This is the Gabriele Veneziano model. It generated an immense amount of energy that led to the creation of baryonic matter in our universe.
Both models assume an eternal space existing before, beside, and after the universe. As you or someone else here went to great lenght to explain, eternal things need no cause.
Quote:
As far as uncaused...things. I would like to know how science proves something does not have a cause. As far as I remember you never really answered that question. I wondered how we can prove anything other than that we don't know the cause. I don't know how to prove a negative. It was like scientists 50 years ago proving that vestigial organs have no purpose. Surprise! They do.
I'm indeed surprised, as the outcome of the discussion so far clearly showed that they don't. You are, as to my knowledge, still brooding over an answer on the debunking of the "appendix purpose" weeks ago.
The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem
It's a little annoying to refute all creationist arguments just to see them repeated some time later. I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god?
[Re: jcl]
#76234
06/15/06 14:10
06/15/06 14:10
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Doesn't exist naturally? Yes. That's why it would be a supernatural cause. Again, you're looking to the universe to explain something greater than the universe. I think this is faulty reasoning, but I don't know how to convince you not to think this way.
Prove to me that there even is something like 'supernatural' , prove to me there is even something bigger than the universe for that matter and maybe you could indeed convince me that my reasoning is faulthy ...
Yes, well maybe I find it just to hard to grasp the fact that there might indeed be a God, but when I have any doubts about something I usually believe in what I do know for sure. The reality I'm living in has up to now never ever shown me any signs of supernaturality (lol, does that word even exist? It sounds funny hehehe  ). Why should I thus believe otherwise?
It's too easy for me to believe in something that you can't see, feel or notice, only to comfort your conscious with a wishful something as a God. If I would start believing in him now, then I would not truly believe without any prove. It would be hypocritical from my side.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god?
[Re: PHeMoX]
#76235
06/16/06 00:27
06/16/06 00:27
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Both models assume an eternal space existing before, beside, and after the universe. As you or someone else here went to great lenght to explain, eternal things need no cause.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said...But anyway, its interesting that you should use the word eternal. There are about six definitions to this word that I know of. However, I'm more interested in what your interpretation is.
Do you mean existing infinitely? In other words, these 'pre-universes' (one of the other) still exist within time, but it exists in an infinite amount of time?
Or do you mean it exists beyond time, outside of time, etc? In which case, I have to read up on these theories because that's almost as out there as UFO conspirators.
I know its unfair of me to ask you to explain something I could find out for myself. However, I somehow think that would require hours of reading wherein you could just give me a two second answer.
Quote:
You are, as to my knowledge, still brooding over an answer on the debunking of the "appendix purpose" weeks ago.
Brooding over what? It was just a parallel. Or are you talking about toe muscles? As far as I remember that was the only unanswered 'vestigial organ'. Not to jumpstart that argument again, but I guess this statement was so vague that I didn't quite catch what you were talking about.
Quote:
The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem
It's a little annoying to refute all creationist arguments just to see them repeated some time later. I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.
Ok, so you either don't know how they prove something has no cause, and you're hoping I'll find out by reading the literatature, or...You do know and you're just not saying because you don't feel like it and you're hoping I'll find out by reading the papers.
Frankly, the sources are so lengthy, and non layman friendly that it really isn't going to help much. What I'm saying is I don't quite get it, and after getting halfway, most of the way, or all the way through something about Bell's Theorem and not seeing any real discussion of uncaused events, I tend to get bored. 
I don't really know what I'm supposed to get from reading those sources. I mean, I see what you're talking about, but your sources certainly don't entertain a question like mine. They just seem to assume I'll agree that these events for sure have no cause. That's kind of one sided, and is hardly satisfying my curiosities about the theorem. Certainly I'm not saying Bell's Theorem is false as a whole. I think the idea that we can say with certainty that there is an event for which there is for certain no cause is shaky ground to be on.
Quote:
I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.
90% of the problem would be solved if we just didn't allow Matt to post.
Quote:
Prove to me that there even is something like 'supernatural'
That website was supposed to be a logical ladder of conclusions that lead to that conclusion. I can't respond to this vague of a statement. If you have a problem with either his logic or mine, please point out something specific.
Quote:
prove to me there is even something bigger than the universe for that matter and maybe you could indeed convince me that my reasoning is faulthy ...
You assume automatically that the default position is your position; namely that it makes more sense that an 'infinite' nothingness created the universe than an 'infinite' something. You're trying to control the argument by making me assume you're right and thus forcing me to argue against your position.
I could point out that the majority of the world believes in some kind of creator, play that card, and try and 'control' the argument, but I think we're both better off sticking to specific logic on this one.
If you have a problem with the logic used so far, feel free to cite a specific example. If you feel you have irrefutable logic that there doesn't need to be a creator, please give it and I'll show you why you're wrong. But you need to be specific, and keep it on a level playing field because I'm not going to have you forcing me to chase you all over the debate.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/16/06 00:27.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: testDummy]
#76236
06/19/06 02:09
06/19/06 02:09
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
ICEman
Developer
|
Developer
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 535
Michigan
|
God is just one of those things that humanity is far too young to begin to know about. I believe one exists.. or did exist.. because all things had to come from something and this universe is far too intelligently designed to have sprang from randomnity (which itself is an illusion to me)... I dont think it was some ultrapowerful beyond all logic being.. like most humans seem to be convinced it was or is. Then again, my theory is just as much opinion as is that of all religious leaders, scholars and people here.. because we dont know and are centuries.. if not millenia from learning. My point being.. in light of that fact.. we should be worried about our more immediate problems.. like how we're going to avoid blowing eachother up one day.
I'm ICEman, and I approved this message.
|
|
|
|
