tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post3683511614585643787..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Wearesmrt's Incisive Analytical CapabilitiesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-61037201010886458282013-06-29T14:23:36.930-05:002013-06-29T14:23:36.930-05:00Hi Stan,
I will post a response on the marriage t...Hi Stan,<br /><br />I will post a response on the marriage thread shortly. Let me know if it explains what "justification" means clearly enough... I would then go back to answer your last comment here if you are interested.<br /><br />CheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-57505852097355797112013-06-27T00:05:08.846-05:002013-06-27T00:05:08.846-05:00” I also think it's POSSIBLE that there is not...<i>” I also think it's POSSIBLE that there is nothing outside the visible universe around us as I pointed out before... You reject these possibilities without proper justification: You state that the universe is contingent, by definition, regardless of the POSSIBILITY that the universe is actually much bigger, possibly infinite, and thus non-contingent.”</i><br /><br />It is also <i>possible</i> that the sun is molten cheese, just awaiting nachos. But not likely. The possibilities you cling to exist only in your mind; you cannot justify them using any knowledge of the universe which has been given empirical standing, and it goes against knowledge of the universe which does have empirical standing. You have no reason or reasoning for your imagined “possibilities”.<br /><br />Let’s talk justification. You have never, ever, ever declared what justification means to you. It is a wiggle word that you use without definition. I have tried to pry that out of you, to no avail. So I stop here, until you define justification in detail, because I have science on my side as justification, while you have only your imagination which you consider “possible”, therefore justified. I consider your imaginings to be non-justifiable as knowledge; I consider the science currently available to be at least best-available physical knowledge. And the science discounts an infinite universe (which you imagine without cause), it discounts non-contingency (which you imagine without cause) of both the expanding universe and the universe back to but not including the origination of the expansion, and it does not support any prior mass/energy, space/time existence (which you also imagine without cause). <br /><br />If you cannot produce cause for your imagined “possibilities”, cause which refutes the case against your imagined “possibilities”, then you have no justifiable case, either logically or empirically.<br /><br />When you speak of justification, I consider your rejection of science which you base on your imaginings to be completely without justification, whereas science is at least based on repeatable empirical disciplined observation of what you call “reality”: physical, material existence. Your imaginings are faced with actual knowledge which contradicts and therefore refutes their value.<br /><br />So your concept of “justification” must vary quite widely from mine, and from the use of actual knowledge. <br /><br />Kindly justify your concept of “justification” – after you have fully laid it out with complete specifics for what facts you accept as justifiable.<br /><br />And if you refuse to discuss this with the comment, "useless rhetoric", as you have done above to avoid actual discussion, then the thread is, in fact, over.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-32358531043670748292013-06-27T00:05:02.618-05:002013-06-27T00:05:02.618-05:00” "By rejecting the definition you reject bot...<i>” "By rejecting the definition you reject both logic and science as operable in places you cannot visit or see or test."<br />I don't reject logic and science as operable in places I cannot visit/see/test since the Big Bang is already something we cannot visit/see/test. Dark matter would be another example. We cannot directly visit/see/test it yet I am as convinced as any other person (who knows what it is) that it does in fact exists. We infer its existence from the things that we do visit/see/test, just like the Big Bang.<br /><br />The disagreement we have is on what we can infer, or not, from what we already know.”</i><br /><br />Yes, it is. You cannot infer imaginary physical existences from current science observations, nor can you infer infinities from finites, without invoking your imagination as the source.<br /><br /><i>” "That is up to you, of course, but your skepticism is not convincing as a means to actual knowledge; all your skepticism does is to prevent knowledge which is obtained deductively, rejected regardless of its probability."<br /><br />Useless rhetorical point #2</i><br /><br />And that is a useless defense against the point being made. I’ll make it again: your rejection of actual knowledge-based deductions, in favor of imaginary physical existences, prevents the acceptance of actual knowledge. You claim to accept the Big Bang on one hand, and then you claim that it is credible that the universe is actually infinite; that is anti-scientific. You claim to accept that the Big Bang was the creation of mass/energy, space/time, and then you claim that the contingency of the universe doesn’t end when looking back; that is anti-logical, without premises and denying a tautological truth.<br /><br /><i>”(It goes against everything I care about... If I did not want new knowledge, I would not try to learn nor discuss with people I disagree with. If I rejected deductive knowledge, regardless of its probability, I would fail at pretty much everything I do in life, especially the things I am good at right now!)</i><br /><br />And yet you have done so, in favor of your ideology.<br />(more below)<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-25086266838156979522013-06-27T00:04:10.372-05:002013-06-27T00:04:10.372-05:00”I give very detailed explanations as to what I re...<i>”I give very detailed explanations as to what I reject and why. I reject the notion that the universe was shown to be limited; I reject the idea that "it's impossible for the universe to be infinite."</i><br /><br />This is certainly not any reasoning for the conclusion you make; it is merely a conclusion with no premises.<br /><br /><i>”You on the other hand, do believe this idea. You believe the statement: "it's impossible for the universe to be infinite". And you seem to believe it very strongly, as if we 'knew' it to be true, as if it was close to 100% probable. Correct?”</i><br /><br />That which can be proved with disciplined deduction and additionally has disciplined empirical support can be rationally believed; contrary information without any sort of proof or even premises such as you provide are imaginings which you find useful, but are without any supporting premises for validation, therefore they fail the principles of logic, and further, they therefore not credible as possible conclusions. You must defeat both the deductive logic and the empirical observations if you are to give credibility to your imaginings.<br /><br /><i>”Your definition implies that '"it's impossible for the universe to be infinite" so yes, I do reject that definition because it goes against logic and science.”</i><br /><br />That is incredibly false. FALSE. The universe did not exist prior to the expansion; you must defeat that if you are to make credible arguments.<br /><br /><i>” But logically speaking, if the universe is the container for all that is physical/material/natural, then it is still possible that there was something more, so what we perceive to be the universe is possibly just a tiny fraction of a larger universe, which may or may not be infinite.”</i><br /><br />You are logic chopping by confusing terms. You claim this:<br /><br />(a) , if the universe is the container for <b>ALL </b>that is physical/material/natural, then it is still possible that there was something more,<br /><br />This is false, if the “something more” is “physical/material/natural”, which obviously contradicts the premise, a mistake which your conclusion rides on:<br /><br />(b) so what we perceive to be the universe is possibly just a tiny fraction of a larger universe, which may or may not be infinite.<br /><br />False. If <b>ALL</b> that is mass/energy is contained in the universe we know to exist, then there is no reason to even consider that there is a larger mass/energy existence (“larger universe”), except in your imagination, and even that violates your own logic. If there is something more, it is not logical to think that it is mass/energy without some actual reason to think so. Other than imagining it.<br />(more below)<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-20858064228648487772013-06-26T16:03:48.182-05:002013-06-26T16:03:48.182-05:00"And your dependence upon extra-cosmic specul...<i>"And your dependence upon extra-cosmic speculation..."</i><br />Yes it's speculation, but to prove a point: it's POSSIBLE that the universe we live in is part of a much bigger structure. You asked for reasons to suspect that; I supplied them.<br /> <br /><i>"...in order to bolster your cosmic skepticism goes exactly counter to your demand for first hand observation in order to know a thing."</i><br />You are the one who is skeptic of a multi-verse here. I think it's POSSIBLE that, even though we cannot have first hand observation and will most likely never have it, what's outside the "post-Big Bang Universe" is yet more physical/material/natural stuff. I think it's possible there could be an infinite quantity of this stuff, whatever it may be. I also think it's POSSIBLE that there is nothing outside the visible universe around us as I pointed out before... You reject these possibilities without proper justification: <b>You state that the universe is contingent, by definition, regardless of the POSSIBILITY that the universe is actually much bigger, possibly infinite, and thus non-contingent.</b><br /><br />I do specify 'proper' justifications because you gave 1, but I reject it. You stated that time started with the Big Bang and that this is thus an indication that the universe is contingent. This simply re-affirms the idea that the post-Big Bang universe is contingent, but not that it cannot possibly be part of a non-contingent container. It states the conclusion that the universe is contingent as starting point. The definition of the universe thus include 'contingent', which goes against logic and science.<br /><br /><i>"If you cannot extrapolate the first principles of the known universe to apply to the same universe, only to portions which are outside of your visual horizon, then it is irrational for you to treat speculations of other universes (also outside your visual horizon) with anything other than that very same skepticism and rejection."</i><br />I am consistent. What I do, just like any seeker does, is precisely what you describe here: extrapolate the first principles of the known universe. This leads us to the Big Bang Theory as the best explanation for the beginning of the universe we live in. The problem is what you infer from this Theory...<br /><br /><i>No, your rejection is absolutely biased toward answers you want, prejudiced emotionally.</i><br />Useless rhetorical point #3<br />You had to bring up the 'emotional' side of it again? Why? There is nothing emotional about these things... so your accusation reveal your own emotional attachment if there is any...<br /><br /><i>So go your happy way. There will be no discussion possible with you due to your pre-chosen rejections which are biased by your prechosen favored (but unknowable by the same standards by which you reject) speculations.</i><br />Useless rhetorical point #4<br />Sure. I don't mind stopping the discussion on the possibility that the universe is infinite. You claim that I am emotional about but you seem to think that it's important enough for you to not want to discuss anything else... so this sounds a lot more emotional than I could possibly be... unless I am getting this wrong and you mean only that you cannot discuss 'that' thing anymore?<br /><br />What if I were to say, 'ok' let's suppose the universe is clearly finite and at some point nothing material/physical/natural existed, we would continue with a proof for...? I would not want to be accused of saying that you want to prove 1 God... I won't have much time anymore anyway since I am done with my vacation :(World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-27962618908756040622013-06-26T16:02:17.113-05:002013-06-26T16:02:17.113-05:00Hi Stan,
So I did make a mistake in a previous co...Hi Stan,<br /><br />So I did make a mistake in a previous comment regarding the definition of 'universe' but what you wrote after clarified it and made it evident that we disagree on is the definition. You are correct. It will be evident by the end of this comment.<br /><br />Hugo said:<br />”’1. Everything which exists in the universe is contingent under empirical scientific definition.’<br />So I don't deny that you present evidence nor deductive arguments, I only reject premises like 1. above.”<br /><br />Stan replied:<br /><i>"You are free to reject whatever you like. You are free to demand whatever proof you like."</i><br />Useless rhetorical point #1<br /><br /><i>"You are free to NOT provide any specifications for what you reject."</i><br />I give very detailed explanations as to what I reject and why. I reject the notion that the universe was shown to be limited; <b>I reject the idea that "it's impossible for the universe to be infinite."</b><br />You on the other hand, do believe this idea. You believe the statement: "it's impossible for the universe to be infinite". And you seem to believe it very strongly, as if we 'knew' it to be true, as if it was close to 100% probable. Correct?<br /><br /><i>"However, you are not likely to convince anyone that you are open minded while rejecting a definition under which logic and science operate."</i><br />Your definition implies that '"it's impossible for the universe to be infinite" so yes, I do reject that definition because it goes against logic and science.<br />A correct statement is that it's impossible for whatever started to exist since the Big Bang to be infinite. That is scientifically accurate. But logically speaking, if the universe is the container for all that is physical/material/natural, then it is still possible that there was something more, so what we perceive to be the universe is possibly just a tiny fraction of a larger universe, which may or may not be infinite.<br /><br /><i>"By rejecting the definition you reject both logic and science as operable in places you cannot visit or see or test."</i><br />I don't reject logic and science as operable in places I cannot visit/see/test since the Big Bang is already something we cannot visit/see/test. Dark matter would be another example. We cannot directly visit/see/test it yet I am as convinced as any other person (who knows what it is) that it does in fact exists. We infer its existence from the things that we do visit/see/test, just like the Big Bang.<br /><br /><b>The disagreement we have is on what we can infer, or not, from what we already know.</b><br /><br /><i>"That is up to you, of course, but your skepticism is not convincing as a means to actual knowledge; all your skepticism does is to prevent knowledge which is obtained deductively, rejected regardless of its probability."</i><br />Useless rhetorical point #2<br />(It goes against everything I care about... If I did not want new knowledge, I would not try to learn nor discuss with people I disagree with. If I rejected deductive knowledge, regardless of its probability, I would fail at pretty much everything I do in life, especially the things I am good at right now!)World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-28428322162298932802013-06-24T20:14:15.536-05:002013-06-24T20:14:15.536-05:00Hugo said:
”’1. Everything which exists in the un...Hugo said:<br /><br /><i>”’1. Everything which exists in the universe is contingent under empirical scientific definition.’<br /><br />So I don't deny that you present evidence nor deductive arguments, I only reject premises like 1. above.”</i><br /><br />You are free to reject whatever you like. You are free to demand whatever proof you like. You are free to NOT provide any specifications for what you reject. However, you are not likely to convince anyone that you are open minded while rejecting a <i>definition</i> under which logic and science operate. By rejecting the <i>definition</i> you reject both logic and science as operable in places you cannot visit or see or test. That is up to you, of course, but your skepticism is not convincing as a means to actual knowledge; all your skepticism does is to prevent knowledge which is obtained deductively, rejected regardless of its probability.<br /><br />And your dependence upon extra-cosmic speculation in order to bolster your cosmic skepticism goes exactly counter to your demand for first hand observation in order to know a thing. If you cannot extrapolate the first principles of the known universe to apply to the same universe, only to portions which are outside of your visual horizon, then it is irrational for you to treat speculations of other universes (also outside your visual horizon) with anything other than that very same skepticism and rejection. No, your rejection is absolutely biased toward answers you want, prejudiced emotionally. So your rejectionism itself is certainly rejectable based on that prejudice.<br /><br />So go your happy way. There will be no discussion possible with you due to your pre-chosen rejections which are biased by your prechosen favored (but unknowable by the same standards by which you reject) speculations.<br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-55257039980644407922013-06-24T01:24:27.577-05:002013-06-24T01:24:27.577-05:00No Stan you did not present argumentation defendin...No Stan you did not present argumentation defending what we disagree on. Have to keep it short again so what matters is this; Prove this premise:<br /><br />1. Everything which exists in the universe is contingent under empirical scientific definition.<br /><br />You assert it without justification. The only way such statement can be true is if 'universe' = 'what we can observe empirically'<br /><br />So I don't deny that you present evidence nor deductive arguments, I only reject premises like 1. above.<br /><br />Too much to cover for now...<br /><br />Oh but here's 1 thing I had saved for further reading:<br />http://www.space.com/21421-universe-multiverse-inflation-theory.html<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2326869/Is-universe-merely-billions-Evidence-existence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html<br /><br />CheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-25563758769431708982013-06-23T22:26:33.159-05:002013-06-23T22:26:33.159-05:00”It's good that we agree on 1 thing regarding ...<i>”It's good that we agree on 1 thing regarding scientific factoids, but the choice of words is subtle yet important. I dont claim we have reasons to suspect there was anything, I claim that we cannot prove otherwise. Yes the brain in a vat scenario has similarities but it's a complete different topic and implications, a very bad parallel in thus case.”</i><br /><br />Brain-in-a-Vat denialist Skepticism is exactly what you are doing. You are asserting Radical Skepticism in the Pyrrhonian vein. You wish to deny whatever you cannot “prove”, and you neglect to define your specifications for proof, your specifications for existence, your specifications for “objective”. What is implied in your denial is both Radical Skepticism and Philosophical Materialism.<br /><br /><i>”The simultaneous Big Bang example is very useful. It serves to show that the simple view of a single universe with all of the possible "time" is bogus. I think you should also think more about these things. Why not read aboyt evidence of the multiverse? “</i><br /><br />That now is bullshit. If you have some evidence, then give it. Here and now. And I demand that you give the exact type of evidence which you demand: “objective” evidence, not speculative hypotheses attempting to support Atheist denialist positions. Your assertion of my ignorance is an insult and is without merit. And your use of multiverse speculations to shore up your "disproof" is just Radical Skepticism, pure and simple.<br /><br /><i>”You're bottom line is wrong and confirms that you still don't understand my position. I DONT give higher value to one scenario. You stated precisely thw opposite of what I believe...<br /><br />I am seeking, searching, open minded. I wish you were right and there were a god, I wish we could prove which one and stop fighting about it... this is just not thw reality we live in, and I choose reality and reason over emotions and wishful thinking.”</i><br /><br />What you choose is <b>not to address the evidence which is given to you</b>, using the criteria which you claim to use, and which you demand of others: objective and rational. <br /><br />By choosing some cherished concept of “reality”, which is actually Philosophical Materialism, you have shown your actual worldview, which is <b>not</b> <i>“searching, open minded”</i>, it is locked solidly onto a single concept and rejects deductive arguments without even attempting to analyze them.<br /><br />Your only argument is that the argument which you did not address cannot be the case, because: "material reality". That reality is limited to material existence is a concept which you assert but cannot "prove". Thus, Materialism is your ideology, around which your mind is enclosed, regardless of your assertions otherwise.<br /><br />Why should we continue this conversation, when you refuse to consider arguments contrary to your ideology?Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-23547308479669081702013-06-23T22:26:25.177-05:002013-06-23T22:26:25.177-05:00Hugo said,
”First, I also partially with Hawkins&...Hugo said,<br /><br /><i>”First, I also partially with Hawkins' philosophical conclusions, since there could still be a god behind all this universe around us. But Stan, you do disagree with science findings by declaring that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang...”</i><br /><br />There are no science “findings” of material existence prior to the Big Bang. There is no science deduction based on observed material existence that there was material existence prior to the Big Bang. There is only ungrounded speculation.<br /><br />I made no claim that there was nothing before the Big Bang, I specifically claim that there can be deduced an existence before the existence of mass /energy, space/time, an existence which is necessarily not part of the material universe, and not necessarily made of universal materials.<br /><br />You seem to be telling me what my position is, yet you are getting it wrong, even though I spelled it out completely. I even gave it numbered premises.<br /><br /><i>”Second, I need for certainty the same thing anybody else should require imo, objective facts and rational arguments... you did not provide such argumentation to support your claims regarding the universe and its potential causes.”</i><br /><br />This is absurd, and trending toward complete denial of the obvious, which I will spell out right now: First: There is no material object to be shown, so there is no material “objective” evidence; demanding material evidence for non-material existence is a blatant Category Error. (If I had a nickel for every time I have said that…) Second I have given you an enumerated deductive argument above, which you now claim does not exist.<br /><br />Tell me why this should not stop right exactly here.<br /><br /><i>”Second (again), I do not have any emotional attachment to these things. Why would I? Because I want to reject a specific god? I am ok with a god existing, I actually wish it were for sure, there would be a lot of pros to it I think.”</i><br /><br />Frankly, I believe your performance over your claim here. (see your assertion of "reality", below)<br /><br /><i>”Yes you claimed that there is nothing else, nothing else natur nothing else physical, nothing else but the 1 god you believe in...”</i><br /><br />I said nothing about “1 god”. Period. Nothing. You are now squirming by using false accusations, and you have not addressed the argument given you. If you have any evidence ("proof") that there is (a) physical, material, mass/energy, space/time existence prior to the Big Bang , then give it here and now; (b) If you have any evidence ("proof") that there is NO non-material evidence prior to the Big Bang, then give it here and now. (c) If you have any evidence that objective knowledge is all that there is existent, then show that proof here and now, making it objective knowledge. (d) If you can provide disciplined ("disproof") for the deduction which I gave you above, then make your objective knowledge apparent and show your disproof. <br /><br />Make sure that your "proof" or "disproof" meet your own demand for objective evidence and "reality".<br /><br />If this sounds terse, so be it. I am impatient with sustained denial of obvious prior arguments and especially with dishonest representation of my position in order to defend the opposing argument.<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-77441935669111733722013-06-23T12:25:58.650-05:002013-06-23T12:25:58.650-05:00On my phone again so sorry, I have to be quick sin...On my phone again so sorry, I have to be quick since it's not efficient and cannot really copy/paste since it's annoyingly time consuming...<br /><br />First, I also partially with Hawkins' philosophical conclusions, since there could still be a god behind all this universe around us. But Stan, you do disagree with science findings by declaring that nothing existed prior to the Big Bang...<br /><br />Second, I need for certainty the same thing anybody else should require imo, objective facts and rational arguments... you did not provide such argumentation to support your claims regarding the universe and its potential causes.<br /><br />Second (again), I do not have any emotional attachment to these things. Why would I? Because I want to reject a specific god? I am ok with a god existing, I actually wish it were for sure, there would be a lot of pros to it I think.<br /><br />Yes you claimed that there is nothing else, nothing else natur nothing else physical, nothing else but the 1 god you believe in...<br /><br />It's good that we agree on 1 thing regarding scientific factoids, but the choice of words is subtle yet important. I dont claim we have reasons to suspect there was anything, I claim that we cannot prove otherwise. Yes the brain in a vat scenario has similarities but it's a complete different topic and implications, a very bad parallel in thus case.<br /><br />The simultaneous Big Bang example is very useful. It serves to show that the simple view of a single universe with all of the possible "time" is bogus. I think you should also think more about these things. Why not read aboyt evidence of the multiverse? <br /><br />You're bottom line is wrong and confirms that you still don't understand my position. I DONT give higher value to one scenario. You stated precisely thw opposite of what I believe...<br /><br />I am seeking, searching, open minded. I wish you were right and there were a god, I wish we could prove which one and stop fighting about it... this is just not thw reality we live in, and I choose reality and reason over emotions and wishful thinking. World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-46695129898977334482013-06-22T10:15:03.521-05:002013-06-22T10:15:03.521-05:00Hugo,
"I reject the reasons you gave. They a...Hugo,<br /><br /><i>"I reject the reasons you gave. They all rely on the same principle: before the Big Bang nothing physical existed. But how can you be so sure of that? And how can you even rely on Hawking's finding when you know that he would disagree with you on the implications of his own findings? (And of many many others of course)"</i><br /><br />First, I don’t disagree with Hawkings finding; I disagree with his improper philosophical deduction based on his finding.<br /><br />Second, what do you need for certainty? If rational arguments deducing the overwhelming probability are not certain enough to satisfy you, then you are asserting radical Skepticism, and you can never be satisfied until you get the answer which you desire in your emotions, rather than in your rational mind.<br /><br /><i>”In other words, there is an easy parallel to make with our ancestors. They were looking up at the sky, seeing things move around them and thought that this is it, stuff move around us. Later they realized we move in this stuff too and there is a lot we don't see with the naked eye. Now, jumping to today, you claim that this universe we see around us is all there is? But why? It could be the case sure, but it could also be so many other things...”</i><br /><br />Again that is not what I have said. The argument from contingency claims that there IS something else: a cause. There is no claim that there is nothing else.<br /><br />Further, you are correct about science being temporary and producing contingent factoids which are falsifiable but not falsified. But you have given no reason to suspect that there is any prior material existence before the Big Bang. That can be seen as superstition, even more than your denial of accepted science. You have no reason to believe that, other than the same belief that leads to the “brain in a vat” denial of all reality, which is an undeniable argument and which is incontrovertible by material empirical testing. However, it is also an unsupported and unsupported belief, which is emotional in nature, not rational.<br /><br /><i>” For example, earlier you tossed aside the idea that Big Bangs don't occur all the time, because we don't see that happening, but how could we? What if our Big Bang is one of a billion Big Bang? What if they all happen at the same time so no time constrain is needed outside our universe? Etcetcetc... Oops, G2g...”</i><br /><br />Hugo, “simultaneous Big Bangs” is in no manner unconstrained. It is constrained to simultaneity. You are groping for straws in a maelstrom. Please: at least think through the obvious answers to your “issues”. That is the point of rational thinking… completely thinking through both… BOTH… sides, pro and con. You are merely throwing out bogus cons, making it clear that you do not want the pro to be true, so you throw whatever comes into your mind at it, without much consideration.<br /><br />Here's the bottom line. Since you cannot know, with your own eyes, that mass/energy, space/time did not exist before the Big Bang (re: Hawking, et.al.) and that therefore temporal contingency logically had to stop at the point where mass and time first came into existence, then you (a) reject these points of both science and logic, and (b) create alternative stories which you give higher credence. These stories are without any basis in actual knowledge, and are not defeaters to the argument being made. THEREFORE, your counter-arguments are without weight against the logic and science being presented.<br /><br />THUS, you very apparently are predisposed to denial rather than to discovery; that is an antirational position.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-58738111422658028592013-06-22T03:49:22.513-05:002013-06-22T03:49:22.513-05:00Hi Stan,
So the problem here really is the same a...Hi Stan,<br /><br />So the problem here really is the same again and again, why would the universe not possibly be infinite, or in other words, why is it necessarily contingent? That's what you use as fact to support this idea: An infinite chain of contingent causes cannot exist, because the entire set is contingent. <br /><br />I reject the reasons you gave. They all rely on the same principle: before the Big Bang nothing physical existed. But how can you be so sure of that? And how can you even rely on Hawking's finding when you know that he would disagree with you on the implications of his own findings? (And of many many others of course)<br /><br />In other words, there is an easy parallel to make with our ancestors. They were looking up at the sky, seeing things move around them and thought that this is it, stuff move around us. Later they realized we move in this stuff too and there is a lot we don't see with the naked eye. Now, jumping to today, you claim that this universe we see around us is all there is? But why? It could be the case sure, but it could also be so many other things...<br /><br />For example, earlier you tossed aside the idea that Big Bangs don't occur all the time, because we don't see that happening, but how could we? What if our Big Bang is one of a billion Big Bang? What if they all happen at the same time so no time constrain is needed outside our universe? Etcetcetc... Oops, G2g...World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-47877252982735884992013-06-20T10:39:44.872-05:002013-06-20T10:39:44.872-05:00Hugo,
"In other words, the argumentation agai...Hugo,<br />"In other words, the argumentation against a possible actual infinite run in circles. An actual infinite is deemed impossible because otherwise a first cause is not required, and a first cause is required because we cannot have an actual infinite."<br /><br />Actually not. An infinite chain of contingent causes cannot exist, because the entire set is contingent. Contingency is the very definition of requiring something prior. Time did not exist in the environment before the Big Bang (Hawking, et.al.) So the contingent set stops (looking backward in time) at the Big Bang.<br /><br />Looking backward in time, there is no infinite existence of universal mass/energy, space/time because they did not exist before the Big Bang. So prior physical cause for physical effects - such as motion - stop there too. The actual question is whether the first physical effect, which occured without any possibility of physical cause, was caused non-physically or was spontaneous, out of nothing.<br /><br />Here's the logical hitch: being a physical effect, it is automatically known to be contingent because non-contingency is denied under empirical science.<br /><br />So being contingent, it must have had a cause (upon which it is contingent), but there is no possiblity of a prior mass/energy cause because the first effect is the first existence of mass/energy.<br /><br />Therefore, we know the following:<br /><br />1. Everything which exists in the universe is contingent under empirical scientific definition.<br /><br />2. The very first effect - the brand new existence of mass/energy - came into being without prior existence of mass/energy.<br /><br />3. Without the prior existence of mass/energy, the first effect which is the existence of mass/energy and is contingent, must have been contingent on some cause which was <a rel="nofollow">not</a> mass/energy. That cause would necessarily be non-physical, non-material in the sense of physical = material = mass/energy.<br /><br />I.e., the first cause of the first material effect in the universe - its material existence - necessarily is non-material.<br /><br />This is the primary deduction.<br /><br />a further deduction is this:<br /><br />IF a non-material entity caused the material existence of the universe, then the non-material entity which did so had the capacity and capability to do so (agency).<br /><br />These arguments cannot be sidelined by concepts of infinity, because there is no infinite regression of mass/energy. This is fully supported by cosmological science, and Hubble's discovery of the Red Shift and proof of the expanding universe, which convinced Einstein of Deism, rejecting his earlier Atheism. Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-33580177662167570472013-06-20T10:35:00.315-05:002013-06-20T10:35:00.315-05:00Hugo,
"In other words, the argumentation agai...Hugo,<br /><i>"In other words, the argumentation against a possible actual infinite run in circles. An actual infinite is deemed impossible because otherwise a first cause is not required, and a first cause is required because we cannot have an actual infinite."</i><br /><br />Actually not. An infinite chain of <i>contingent causes</i> cannot exist, because the entire set is contingent. Contingency is the very definition of requiring something prior. Time did not exist in the environment before the Big Bang (Hawking, et.al.) So the contingent set stops (looking backward in time) at the Big Bang.<br /><br />Looking backward in time, there is no infinite existence of universal mass/energy, space/time because they did not exist before the Big Bang. So prior physical cause for physical effects - such as motion - stop there too. The actual question is whether the first physical effect, which occured without any possibility of physical cause, was caused non-physically or was spontaneous, out of nothing.<br /><br />Here's the logical hitch: being a physical effect, it is automatically known to be contingent because non-contingency is denied under empirical science.<br /><br />So being non-contingent, it must have had a cause, but there is no possiblity of a prior mass/energy cause because the first effect is the first existence of mass/energy.<br /><br />Therefore, we know the following:<br /><br />1. Everything which exists in the universe is contingent under empirical scientific definition.<br /><br />2. The very first effect - the brand new existence of mass/energy - came into being without prior existence of mass/energy.<br /><br />3. Without the prior existence of mass/energy, the first effect whichs is the existence of mass/energy and is contingent, must have been contingent on some cause which was not mass/energy. That cause would necessarily be non-physical, non-material in the sense of physical = material = mass/energy.<br /><br />I.e., the first cause of the first material effect in the universe - its material existence - necessarily is non-material.<br /><br />This is the primary deduction.<br /><br />a further deduction is this:<br /><br />IF a non-material entity caused the material existence of the universe, then the non-material entity which did so had the capacity and capability to do so (agency).<br /><br />These arguments cannot be sidelined by concepts of infinity, because there is no infinite regression of mass/energy. This is fully supported by cosmological science, and Hubble's discovery of the Red Shift and proof of the expanding universe, which convinced Einstein of Deism, rejecting his earlier Atheism. <br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-1408552971033367232013-06-20T08:58:36.048-05:002013-06-20T08:58:36.048-05:00(On phone, pardon mistakes)
After reading the ex...(On phone, pardon mistakes)<br /><br />After reading the exchange here a few times and even drafting a response, I realized that everything boils down to 1 thing: is an actual infinite possible?<br /><br />The article you linked to attempts to support 'no' as an answer and you did so too, but I remain unconvinced. The reasons are all in the form of examples of why a first cause makes more sense, what you called a logical block. There is however no deduction process here, or I don't see it...<br /><br />In other words, the argumentation against a possible actual infinite run in circles. An actual infinite is deemed impossible because otherwise a first cause is not required, and a first cause is required because we cannot have an actual infinite. That's what your last paragraph stated with attempts to use reductio ad absurdum, you gave examples of why a cause seem necessary, but forgot the obvious one: no cause means infinite. So using reductio ad absurdum does not work tonprpve that a first cause necessarily exists, we remain with 2 possible scenarios: a cause or not, infinite or not... <br /><br />Science does not help. Reducing the big bang theory to a theory of "everything came into existence" is an oversimplification and naive way the o claim that we know that nothing exists outside the visible universe. <br /><br />CheersWorld of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-68069403376307474442013-06-12T19:20:23.481-05:002013-06-12T19:20:23.481-05:00Hugo,
I have a little time here, but not much. I’...Hugo,<br />I have a little time here, but not much. I’ll try to address your 2B.<br /><br /><i>”I do believe that there are known physical boundaries beyond which no observations are possible, but that does not mean that there is nothing physical beyond these boundaries, nor does it mean that there is nothing at all. There could well be something that we cannot observe beyond these boundaries, something which we can label as non-physical or non-material if we want to. What I find illogical is to believe that such things exist.<br /><br />I have also not accepted the infinite regression; I reject that 'motion has existed for all of an infinite chain of collisions'. I specifically rejected that notion here, in that thread, and many times before. Infinity is a conceptual property which we cannot demonstrate for physical things, by its very definition. Therefore, for the same reason, I find illogical to believe that we are part of an infinite physical universe.</i><br /><br />The physical boundaries of approaching and observing the Big Bang exist because the existence of physical components of the universe cease to exist as time regresses toward its own non-existence. This is currently accepted science, as I have pointed out previously. The concept of physical causation ceases to apply; and yet there must have been a cause, not a physical cause, for the initiation of the universe prior to t = 10^-35 sec which is generally acknowledged as the physical boundary of the Big Bang, beyond which physical observation is impossible, because physical existence was not present.<br /><br />Consider the Reductio Ad Absurdum contrary: there was no cause, either physical or non-physical; the universe erupted into physical existence for no reason or cause. There is a logical block to this idea: there must have been rules for the eruption to occur, because the most obvious of those rules is this: This process of eruption has limiting rules which limit it from occurring all the time and all places. We would see unlimited eruptions of new universes, unless there is a limiting function in place,<i> a priori</i>.<br /><br />So if there are rules, <i>a priori</i>, then there must be other non-physical existence,<i> a priori</i>, which functions to provide rules.<br /><br />So even the Reductio Ad Absurdum leads to<i> a priori</i> existence which is not physical.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-51354971060579681782013-06-12T10:54:24.883-05:002013-06-12T10:54:24.883-05:00Hugo,
Back for a short time.
I should address thi...Hugo,<br />Back for a short time.<br /><br />I should address this:<br /><br /><i>" If my interpretation is correct, this is a reasoning error. It implies that because there was no 'x', 'y' must have been there, since 'y' is not made of 'x'.<br />Wrong."</i><br /><br />The discussion is not about composition ("made of..."), it is about this: <br />IF [(X starts to exist) & (the existence of X was caused by Y which is a part of NOT X)], THEN [Y must have agency to have caused X].Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-51523918744796461182013-06-12T10:05:16.025-05:002013-06-12T10:05:16.025-05:00Hugo,
I gotta git, but here's one place to loo...Hugo,<br />I gotta git, but here's one place to look: on the link above to stanford.plato, go to para. 5.2 for a discussion of infinity.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-29149640866995116542013-06-12T09:44:33.033-05:002013-06-12T09:44:33.033-05:00Hugo,
One argument against the concept that infini...Hugo,<br />One argument against the concept that infinity is rational: its use leads directly to absurdities.<br /><br />For example, there exists an infinite chain of pop-beads. We approach it somewhere in the middle, and break the chain. Now the pop-beads extend infinitely to the right and infinitely to the left - we have two infinite chains, regressing in each direction. This is absurd, of course.<br /><br />More specifically it is mathematically impossible for two subsets each to equal the set (note 1): the concept of infinity is mathematically impossible, yet it is a mathematical concept being used for philosophical "proof".<br /><br />Note 1: <br />infinity divided by two = infinity. <br /><br />So infinity divided by two taken twice = 2 * infinity.<br /><br />The result is that <br />(infinity/2) + (infinity/2) = 2*infinity,<br /><br />or,<br /><br />1 = 2.<br /><br />There are many absurd results from the use of infinity. That is because it is an impossible term to define. Even the idea that x/0=infinity is without meaning for this reason: how is x divided into parts that have zero content?<br /><br />Infinity and infinite regressions are not useful concepts, except to demonstrate mathematical errors.<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-12647798467971641702013-06-12T09:23:05.692-05:002013-06-12T09:23:05.692-05:00Hugo,
Perhaps I should summarize:
The mere existe...Hugo,<br />Perhaps I should summarize:<br /><br />The mere existence of contingent entities (or their properties such as motion) cannot be explained by an infinity of pure contingencies; i.e. even that many contingent entities are still purely contingent.<br /><br />Contingent upon what? Contingent upon a separate cause for their existence, because contingent entities cannot exist on their own - that is a property of contingency.<br /><br />That separate cause is non-contingent.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-63180832729236420532013-06-12T09:16:32.715-05:002013-06-12T09:16:32.715-05:00Hugo,
Regarding the contingency of motion:
From ...Hugo,<br /><br />Regarding the contingency of motion:<br /><br />From <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/" rel="nofollow"> Plato.Stanford.edu:</a><br /><br /><i>"<br />1. A contingent being (a being such that if it exists it could have not-existed or could cease to) exists.<br /><br />2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.<br /><br />3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.<br /><br />4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.<br /><br />5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.<br /><br />6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.<br /><br />7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being such that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists."</i><br /><br />This reasoning addresses the impossibility of an infinite regression of contingency - which includes contingent motion. Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-38889676942303098482013-06-12T09:05:56.922-05:002013-06-12T09:05:56.922-05:00Hugo,
"That something else needs a justifica...Hugo,<br /><br /><i>"That something else needs a justification of its own."</i><br /><br />Either motion is contingent or it is not. If the universe was set into motion, either it is contingent upon a prior entity as a cause, or it set itself into motion (non-contingent).<br /><br />This is more clearly expressed as causation: <br /><br />Either the universe caused itself (non-contingent) or it had a prior cause outside of itself (contingent).<br /><br />If we choose non-contingent, then we have chosen something which is never observed, and which is not rationally explainable (something comes out of absolutely nothing, for no reason, with no cause).<br /><br />Further, motion cannot be understood outside the universe, because it is defined as a position change in x,y,z coordinates over a period of time, t. These things are specific to our universe (Hawking et. al)Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14860850768269357636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59724843714713878672013-06-12T00:03:46.227-05:002013-06-12T00:03:46.227-05:00oh and also addressed that:
Option (c) suggests ag...oh and also addressed that:<br /><i>Option (c) suggests agency.</i><br /><br />See this part:<br />orrect if I am wrong, this seems to follow from the possible idea that at some point there was no space/time/mass/energy. If my interpretation is correct, this is a reasoning error. It implies that because there was no 'x', 'y' must have been there, since 'y' is not made of 'x'.<br />Wrong.<br />Even if we were to agree that the universe is definitely finite, and thus that clearly there was no space/time/mass/energy before the universe existed, it is still wrong to claim that there was something else. That something else needs a justification of its own.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-54846510956333128782013-06-12T00:02:35.577-05:002013-06-12T00:02:35.577-05:00Hi,
There is a reasoning error in what you wrote;...Hi,<br /><br />There is a reasoning error in what you wrote; I think half of my long comments is about explaining that error...<br /><br /><i>IFF there is not an original cause for the motion, then there is an infinite chain, which is generally considered a logical absurdity, both incomprehensible and unprovable.</i><br /><br />It's not a logical absurdity. It's actually possible logically speaking. It is slightly incomprehensible since we cannot grasp infinity. And yes it's certainly unprovable.<br /><br /><i>So we must deal with the more rationally acceptable conclusion that there was an original cause.</i><br /><br />It is not more rationally acceptable, why would it be?<br /><br />An un-caused cause, an un-moved mover, whatever we are talking about, is possible, hard to comprehend, but unlike infinity, could be provable, I suppose. Not really sure how we can prove that though...<br /><br />Saying that infinity is not believable is certainly no reason. 'Not believable' does not equal 'proven false/wrong/non-existent'World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com