09 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterFair enough. So I take it here that when you said “Only things that have a reason to begin can be understood” you don’t actually believe that at all and what you meant to say was: “Only beginnings that have a reason for the beginning can have THAT reason for the beginning understood”?
You went off on a tangent assuming that I was really quite dim. The avalanche thing was unneccessary.
Of course what I was saying was that if a phenomena really has no reason to have begun then that means that phenomena (ie the beginning) can be understood. The beginning cannot be understood.
I have already said that the universe can be inves ...[text shortened]... ught would have made you realise that it was more a case of clumsy wording than anything else.
-if so, then I obviously would agree that is logically correct -you cannot understand a reason if there is no reason to understand.
…I have already said that the universe can be investigated but by your definition the beginning itself cannot be understood. No-one would ever be able to say " this is why/how it began". . …
In the narrow terms of “understanding” any kind of “why” or “how” it began, yes.
That is because there is no “why” nor “how” it began to “understand“.
09 Sep 08
But I knew your point allright, KM.
We agree that we disagree big time! So be it -but just a last note: you cannot take for granded nothing. The Great Mysteries of the past became the ragdolls of the nowday children. You remember that guy Galileo? Some dudes were ready to BBQ him just because he said that this big blue marble was spinnin;
Right now there 's a bad moon rising over here in Athens, and this very moon one night it will try to locate us but in vain. I 'm sure you see what I mean. So no hard feelings, no prob at all, kindly please feel free to have a different view, your personal opinion. I assure you that I respect you in full, that's why I spend my sweet time talking to you. And our sole asset is our time I reckon, KM dude.
Maybe sometimes my sense of humor is a bit aristophanean, so excuse for my previous joke -but that 's all. I m done with this thread, I expressed you my opinion frankly and with open heart.
😉
09 Sep 08
Hi knightmeister,
Are you still not ready to admit that you do not infact know that everything you know to have a begining has a cause?
Are you also ready to admit that not all dimentions are infinite?
Are you ignoring my posts so that you can repeat your false statements in future threads with minimal guilt?
Why is it so hard for you to admit that in this particular case you are wrong?
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI for one find that much clearer. Thank you. I'm not sure why I should find any of that particularly interesting, but that's much clearer.
Today is accepted due to the scientific finds and evidence that there is not a specific "reason". But this issue remains open, therefore Tomorrow we may really find out the "reason". So Science will keep up without taking your "definition" as a fact.=========beetle-----------
Let me clarify. All I am trying to establish is the logical ramifications ...[text shortened]... mystery.
Clearer?
BTW- I figured this out long before any theology came along.
The discussion has diverted a long way from your opening post. Have you given any more thought to just what sorts of beliefs you think the atheist has reason to mistrust when they arise in him?
09 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…So you are certain that there is no "before " the Big Bang?
So you are certain that there is no "before " the Big Bang?
You know this how? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument?
Or is it an article of faith for you?
You know this how? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument?
. …
Basically, it is modern science that is my evidence. This is not something I personally made up -it is something that has been established as scientific fact for quite some time now.
Fortunately I have studied physics at university so I can elaborate on that:
Relativity tells us that both space and time are relative (to frames of reference) and speed is absolute (in terms of the speed of light). One of the really subtle consequences of this (and which Einstein realised) is that time cannot exist without space and space cannot exist without time. This is why physicist sometimes refer space and time not as separate things but as “spacetime” and treat it as a singe entirety:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
Now, the current universe is expanding -we know this from the Doppler shift:
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ExpandUni.html
Obviously, if the universe is expanding now, it must have been much smaller in the past. If you keep going back in time you will reach the big-bang where the universe was tiny which means it has virtually no space in it at all. But if you make an (unsafe) extrapolation from that by keep going back in time, logically you would reach a stage when there was no space because the universe will have zero size!
But, as I have already explained, time cannot exist without space and thus, if it had zero size, it would not only have no space in it but no time! But not having no time at that stage, -and this is the critical point, would logically mean that at NO POINT in TIME would that stage exist! Therefore, logic dictates that at no point in time could the universe had zero size and, at the beginning of the universe, the universe was extremely tiny but of a finite non-zero size and, also, logic dictates that the start of the universe was the start of time because there couldn’t be a “before” the start because a “before” would mean the universe having zero size for a point in time because it would have still been expanding (-there would be nothing stopping it!).
Now, you might think “ hang on, if as you go back in time it gets smaller and smaller, what determines at what point time begins before it becomes zero size? I mean, exactly what is stopping it going all the way to zero size?“
Well, fortunately there is at least one thing known in science that would stop it going to zero size and that thing comes from quantum mechanics and is called “Planck length”:
Modern science tells us that it is impossible to have a size less than a certain distance across and that distance across is what is called “Planck length”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Nothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! So as you go back in time and the universe gets smaller and smaller, if nothing else stops it getting even smaller until it is zero size, when it reaches one Planck length across it stops becoming smaller and at that stage would be time zero -the beginning of both time and space. To become smaller than one Planck length across would to cease to exist! Having said that, I think (if I remember correctly) the modern theory is it actually started a bit larger than that but I don’t know why.
I believe that answers your questions.
…Or is it an article of faith for you?.…
As you can see from my very comprehensive answer above, it is NOT “faith” but science, evidence and reason.
09 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! -----------hammy-------------
[b]…So you are certain that there is no "before " the Big Bang?
You know this how? Where is your evidence? Where is your argument?
. …
Basically, it is modern science that is my evidence. This is not something I personally made up -it is something that has been established as scientific fact for quite some time now.
Fortunately I have ...[text shortened]... e from my very comprehensive answer above, it is NOT “faith” but science, evidence and reason.[/b]
But the universe does not exist "in" the universe does it. It cannot logically exist within "itself". Think about what you have said above. That aside......
I hate to bosh your long post as you obviously went to a lot of effort. Let me fill you in here. Whilst not a physics expert I am quite well read on the subject and and know about various things like string theory (greene) and two slit experiments. I also very much subscribe to the spacetime idea.
Ok , so where all this falls down is that you have failed to grasp that the universe might exist within the context of some other form of reality. For example , Brian Greene speculates that the Universe may have been formed via what he calls branes colliding I think (correct me if I am wrong) . Whatever, it makes no difference. All that science can tell us is confined to the rules that exist within our own universe , we have no idea whether a whole realm of time or 5th,6th or 7th dimensions pre-exists or underpins the entire universe.
WE ONLY KNOW ABOUT THE SPACE/TIME THAT EXISTS IN OUR UNIVERSE - IT MAY BE THE ONLY SPACE/TIME OR IT MAY NOT.
Therefore logically you cannot prove that there was nothing "before" the Big Bang you can only say that there was no space/time (as we know it in THIS universe) because all the projections are based on THIS universe which may be the only thing in existence or might be only one of trillions.
Since Brian Greene has postulated 11 dimensions and has yet to be laughed out of the scientific community , I fail to see how you can be so certain of your scientific "facts".
All your reasoning says is the equivalent of "before the universe , there was no universe , therefore it's a meaningless question" , and I agree that there was no space/time from our universe "before" the universe but since we have no idea whether the space/time in our universe is unique to existence or not I see no basis for your certainty.
In short , the argument you have put forward starts with the assumption "there can be no other space/time or reality than the one in our universe" and works on from there to confirm the starting premise. I'm sure you will recognise that this is a circular flawed argument because the conclusion is only possible because of the premise. As soon as you throw in the possibility that other forms of reality might exist and cannot be ruled out (which is logical and sceintific) your argument is in tatters because it is based on an assumption that it is not possible to make.
You have pre-assumed that the universe is the only thing that exists with no evidence of this. Your argument rest on it.
That my friend is why it is an article of faith.
09 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAre you still not ready to admit that you do not infact know that everything you know to have a begining has a cause? --whitey------
Hi knightmeister,
Are you still not ready to admit that you do not infact know that everything you know to have a begining has a cause?
Are you also ready to admit that not all dimentions are infinite?
Are you ignoring my posts so that you can repeat your false statements in future threads with minimal guilt?
Why is it so hard for you to admit that in this particular case you are wrong?
Why , do you know of anything that has a beginning but no cause? Look me up when you find one.
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by LemonJelloThanks
I for one find that much clearer. Thank you. I'm not sure why I should find any of that particularly interesting, but that's much clearer.
The discussion has diverted a long way from your opening post. Have you given any more thought to just what sorts of beliefs you think the atheist has reason to mistrust when they arise in him?
I think I was guilty of lack of clarity at first. Like many threads , this one has gone away from the main post , but that's Ok.
I posted this because of something CS lewis said about how atheist value reason but by implication their very reason must be founded on chaotic determinism in a universe that has no purpose or reason.
09 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton-if so, then I obviously would agree that is logically correct -you cannot understand a reason if there is no reason to understand.
Fair enough. So I take it here that when you said “Only things that have a reason to begin can be understood” you don’t actually believe that at all and what you meant to say was: “Only beginnings that have a reason for the beginning can have THAT reason for the beginning understood”?
-if so, then I obviously would agree that is logically correct - ...[text shortened]... r “how” it began, yes.
That is because there is no “why” nor “how” it began to “understand“.
------hammy---------------
And that's why I would say that to say the universe just "began" for no reason is unreasonable. It may be true but it is an unreasonable , irrational mystery. Not only that , this unreasonable event is the indirect cause (via the determinism you presumably believe in) of every single one of your thought processes.
It is the foundation of your reason. And it unreasonable.
10 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI listed several, and I repeated the list in a number of posts, and you even admitted to accepting one of them. You have since resorted to ignoring any of my posts with such lists, so I will not repeat them in this post as you will simply ignore it.
Why , do you know of anything that has a beginning but no cause? Look me up when you find one.
Also, your claim was subtly different. You claimed that you knew about the existence of a cause for everything that you knew that has a beginning.
10 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterCS lewis said about how atheist value reason but by implication their very reason must be founded on chaotic determinism in a universe that has no purpose or reason.
Thanks
I think I was guilty of lack of clarity at first. Like many threads , this one has gone away from the main post , but that's Ok.
I posted this because of something CS lewis said about how atheist value reason but by implication their very reason must be founded on chaotic determinism in a universe that has no purpose or reason.
I am not familiar with Lewis' argument (if indeed he offers something substantial that we could call an argument).
But, anyway, do you have some reasons to think that what cognitive faculties do exist are unreliable -- again, expressly in light of and supposing naturalism (which would hold that the diversity of life has come about through, let's say, chance abiogenesis followed by natural selection)? For instance, do you have some reasons to think that natural selection (working on ancestors like ours) would favor characteristically unreliable cognitive faculties (say, those that produce a preponderance of false beliefs)? Just on the face of it, I would have thought that the atheist might have many reasons to think that convergence on more or less reliable cognitive faculties would have been selected for in many areas of life and inquiry. I'm just sort of baffled why you or Lewis would make such a blanket claim without even discussing such things -- without even disussing the actual mechanisms that atheists, broadly speaking, think are responsible for the diversity of life and faculties.
All I'm saying is that I for one would actually like to hear some argument on this, rather than some hokey pokey claims that you attribute to CS Lewis. If you have some detailed reasons why the naturalistic mechanisms mentioned above should sustain and converge on characteristically unreliable cognitive faculties, then let's hear them.
10 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…And that's why I would say that to say the universe just "began" for no reason is unreasonable.. …
-if so, then I obviously would agree that is logically correct -you cannot understand a reason if there is no reason to understand.
------hammy---------------
And that's why I would say that to say the universe just "began" for no reason is unreasonable. It may be true but it is an unreasonable , irrational mystery. Not only that , this unreasonab ...[text shortened]... one of your thought processes.
It is the foundation of your reason. And it unreasonable.
Exactly what do you mean by “unreasonable” in this context? You often use the word “unreasonable” like this but I am never able to decipher exactly what you mean by it. Can you elaborate?
…It may be true but it is an unreasonable , irrational MYSTERY.
. …(my emphasis)
In what respect would it be a “MYSTERY”? If I am correct and the universe "began" for no reason then there logically cannot be any “mystery” of what the “reason” it began is because there is no “reason”!
…this unreasonable event is the indirect cause (via the determinism you presumably believe in) of every single one of your thought processes. .…
What on earth does that mean? If I take that statement literally then I would conclude that you are saying my thought processes caused the big bang -I assume that is not what you mean.
10 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Nothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! -----------hammy-------------
Nothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! -----------hammy-------------
But the universe does not exist "in" the universe does it. It cannot logically exist within "itself". Think about what you have said above. That aside......
I hate to bosh your long post as you obviously Your argument rest on it.
That my friend is why it is an article of faith.
But the universe does not exist "in" the universe does it. It cannot logically exist within "itself". …
Obviously what I meant by “….-not even the universe itself! “ part of that statement was that not even the universe itself can exist as being less than one Planck length across -obviously I was not suggesting or implying that the universe exists “in” the universe as you suggested -obviously I don’t believe that would make any sense.
…Ok , so where all this falls down is that you have failed to grasp that the universe MIGHT exist within the context of some other form of reality. . …(my emphasis)
“MIGHT” is the operative word here. While there is good evidence for the big bang, there is NO evidence that “the universe exist within the context of some other form of reality” although I do not totally discount the possibility.
…all the projections are based on THIS universe which may be the only thing in existence or might be only one of trillions. . .…
I do not discount the possibility that there are trillions of universes.
Suppose there was trillions of universes -how would that support your claim that there was no beginning of time for our universe IF that is what you are implying here?
…Since Brian Greene has postulated 11 dimensions and has yet to be laughed out of the scientific community , I fail to see how you can be so certain of your scientific "facts"......
I do not discount Brian Greene postulation of 11 dimensions -if there are indeed 11 dimensions (and if this is eventually proven) then I fail to see why that should make me “less certain” of any of the scientific facts that I am aware of and that includes the scientific fact that time started at the big bang.
…. the argument you have put forward starts with the assumption "there can be no other space/time or reality than the one in our universe" . ….
No. That is and never was my assumption. For all I know, other universes could exist and, if so, obviously those other universes would have their own space and time.
…You have pre-assumed that the universe is the only thing that exists with no evidence of this.…
I have no such presumption.
…That my friend is why it is an article of faith..…
Your argument here that it is faith it flawed because you assume I have presumptions that I don’t have.
All my reasoning here it based on my knowledge of science and the evidence -no faith.
10 Sep 08
2 edits
knightmeister
Suppose you are correct that there was no beginning of time. That would probably only mean, by process of elimination, that either the steady state theory is correct:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_theory
or the pulsating theory is correct:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=pulsating+theory+&btnG=Search
-although there probably are other scientific theories other than the above that I am unaware of.
Non of these alternative above requires any kind of divine intervention to be true and certainly neither has no more “need” for divine intervention than the current big bang theory. Therefore, the claim that there was a beginning of time would be no more either for or against either theism or atheism than the claim there was no beginning of time!
So my claim that there is a beginning of time is NOT because I am an atheist! -my claim that there is a beginning of time is no more atheistic than your claim that there is no beginning of time -I suppose a theist could claim that “god” came to exist at the start of time and the big bang and that would be just as harder to disprove than the claim that “god” existed throughout a time line that had no beginning. So I really don’t see why you see this as a problem here.
Let me put it this way; at the current time all the scientific evidence points to a big bang with the beginning of time being at the big bang and this is the ONLY reason why I believe that this is true -my atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with this belief. But suppose some stunning and surprising new scientific evidence was discovered tomorrow that PROVED all that to be completely wrong and that there is, in fact, no beginning of time and, in fact, say, the steady state theory is the correct theory. If that were to happen, then I would instantly switch from believing there was a beginning of time to believing there was no beginning of time -no hesitation. And this change in my belief would not in any way work against my atheism.
So even if you were to miraculously PROVE to me by logical argument that time had no beginning, it would make no difference. That would only mean that I would accept your proof (and thank you for it 🙂 ) and believe that time had no beginning and that would leave me being just as much an atheist as I am now.
10 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthat includes the scientific fact that time started at the big bang
[b]…Nothing can exist in the universe that is less than one Planck length across -not even the universe itself! -----------hammy-------------
But the universe does not exist "in" the universe does it. It cannot logically exist within "itself". …
Obviously what I meant by “….-not even the universe itself! “ part of that statement was that n ...[text shortened]...
All my reasoning here it based on my knowledge of science and the evidence -no faith.[/b]
------hamilton--------------------
Shouldn't that be "time that we know of within our own universe" rather than TIME? My point here is that you seem to be thinking that time in our universe equates to all possible "time". You say that there was no "before" the universe because there was no time , but all we know is that there was "no time as we know it in this universe".