foundations of reason

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================================
“Outside of time“?
==========================================

Rather astounding, isn't it?

=============================================
that would mean that what “caused” it happen existed at NO point in time! -which means it didn’t exist! -thus there can be no “cause” “outside of time” -yes
That's one scientist's assessment of the implications of the Big Bang Theory.

… However, I will submit at least one astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder of the NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, opinion of the Big Bang's scientific conclusion:

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of FORCES they cannot hope to discover ... That there are what I or anyone else would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact."
.…[/b]

Well obviously this vague reasoning of his with the use of the very vague unscientific word “FORCES” which has no scientific meaning in this context which he then refers to as “supernatural forces” just shows that he is anti-scientific and should be stripped of his title of “scientist”. I am sure you could find many such morons for every profession has those that go against the basic principles of their own profession and, sadly, science is no exception.

…Can you locate an equivalent quotation of a reputable scientist declaring that the UNCAUSED creation of the universe is now a scientifically proven fact? .…

No -because I am unfamiliar with particular scientists. But I AM familiar with basic science including cosmology. I have also studied physics at university.

… But what you call "time" is just a series of events in the universe to which we have ascribed this abstract value called "time" .…

… And I would add this further quotation from this confessed agnostic's book "God and the Astronomers" . In its conclusion he writes:

" For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centries."

That's one scientist's assessment of the implications of the Big Bang Theory.
…

-and that just confirms he is a moron for referring to confidence on reason as “faith” -so what is he suggesting here? -that we should reject reason and logic!? -that is stupid.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you have any proof for any of this or evidence? Or is it just your position and therefore a mere statement of faith.

I would call it an issue of definition. If something is said to exist then it has a location in space time. If it is not in space time then it does not exist. Further if it is not in space time then it cannot be given a location relative to space time ie the word 'before' cannot be applied.
We could hypothesize some sort of other universe with its own dimensions separate from ours but I still think that 'before' would not apply and the possibility of said dimension interacting with ours would be a bit odd.

Originally posted by knightmeister
KM… And nothing can exist outside of time?.…

HAM Correct -that is what I am saying.

KM…Time is the only state in which reality can exist?. .…

HAM Yes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you have any proof for any of this or evidence? Or is it just your position and therefore a mere statement of faith.

… Do you have any proof for any of this or evidence? Or is it just your position and therefore a mere statement of faith..…

It comes from proof from reason -the reason that I have already explained (and twhitehead has just explained).

Originally posted by knightmeister
The property of the events is which ones are contingent on which. Time is the unfolding of events , with one event leading to another. That's how we experience the unfolding of events and "time" is what we call it. It's also a measurement of one set of motion against another. When I look at my watch and time a car passing all that I am doing is compa define what time actually is and how it can be separated from the universe itself.

That doesn’t answer my question. One event comes “before” or “after” another -yes?
-so can you define to me what is meant by the words “before” or “after” without reference to the word “time” or any word that implies it?
-without one event coming “before” or “after” another there would be no “sequence” of events -yes?

…That's how we experience the unfolding of events and "time" is what we call it. It's also a measurement of one set of MOTION against another.
.…(my emphasis)

In physics, within a given frame of reference, “MOTION” is the position in SPACE of something changing with TIME -yes? -if not, then can you define what is meant by “MOTION” without reference to the word “time” or any word that implies it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
… However, I will submit at least one astronomer, Robert Jastrow, the founder of the NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, opinion of the Big Bang's scientific conclusion:

"Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to whi is he suggesting here? -that we should reject reason and logic!? -that is stupid.

=============================
and that just confirms he is a moron for referring to confidence on reason as “faith” -so what is he suggesting here? -that we should reject reason and logic!? -that is stupid.
========================================

Is some kind of desperation causing you to resort to ad hominems against Robert Jastrow? I mean calling him a moron because he doesn't see it all your way. Too bad. It weakens your position in my eyes.

Science is based on a faith and on philosophy. Maybe you're the moron here and not the founder of Nasa's Goddard Institute of Space Studies.


How is science based on faith? Norman Geisler writes:

"Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and , therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. That cannot be proven by science itself. You can't prove the tools of science - the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliabiliy of observation - by running some kind of experiment. You have to assume those things are true in order to do the experiment! So science is built on philosophy. Unfortunetly , many so called scientists are very poor philosophers."

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
and that just confirms he is a moron for referring to confidence on reason as “faith” -so what is he suggesting here? -that we should reject reason and logic!? -that is stupid.
========================================

Is some kind of desperation causing you to resort to ad hominems against Robert Jastrow? I mean ca on philosophy. Unfortunetly , many so called scientists are very poor philosophers." [/b][/b]

… How is science based on faith? Norman Geisler writes:

"Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and , therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and…
..…

“scientists assume (by faith) that reason …”? that is the words of a moron for he is pretending that: reason=blind faith.

Science uses reason. If that reason was wrong then non of our modern technology world work -that is evidence that helps to give weight to reason without any “faith” for you only have to observe that technology works most of the time -no “faith” there -just use your eyes.

…and the scientific method allow us to ACCURATELY understand the world around us. ….(my emphasis)

“ACCURATELY” is the wrong word because nobody is claiming that all scientific predictions are always “accurate”; -what about quantum mechanics with its quantum uncertainty? What about chaos theory that predicts that some outcomes are virtually impossible to predict!? What about the applied mathematics of probability?…etc. The words “to ACCURATELY understand the” in the above should be replaced with the words “to have the most rational understanding of the”.

… That cannot be proven by science itself. You can't prove the tools of science - the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliability of observation - by running some kind of experiment.. .…

-but you can give strong reasons in the form of experimental evidence or observational evidence for the “reliability of observation” by repeating the experiment to do certain classes of observations and then checking the conclusions from those observations by performing alternative kinds of observations/experiments that tests those same conclusions.
For example, you can test the accuracy of observation from carbon dating by first carbon-dating some tree which, according to historical records, where planned a thousand years ago to test the accuracy of those historical records but then test both the accuracy of those historical records AND the carbon dating by observing the number of annual rings in the trees -and then later dating the trees by alternative observations (perhaps by observing the layers of rock that some have been fossilised in etc) and so on with each way of dating that is applied giving more evidence for the accuracy of carbon dating.

Also, sometimes you can “prove” laws of logic/mathematics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principia_Mathematica

Logic and mathematics are not just merely used as tools for science, they are a part of science itself.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
That doesn’t answer my question. One event comes “before” or “after” another -yes?
-so can you define to me what is meant by the words “before” or “after” without reference to the word “time” or any word that implies it?
-without one event coming “before” or “after” another there would be no “sequence” of events -yes?

[b]…That's how we experien ...[text shortened]... what is meant by “MOTION” without reference to the word “time” or any word that implies it?

Of course I cannot refer to "motion" or "sequences of events" or "one event before another" without refering to the word time or time based language.

However , as I said before this is just semantics and language.

Time is just an abstract term we use to describe the events around us. The events that constitute the universe might be the only events in all reality or they may not be.

I fail to see what your point is here. You have yet to show me why the time (series of events) within our known universe are the only "time" that can possibly exist.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that any event or existence outside of our known universe MUST be "at NO point in time". But this is not an argument really because it is based on a preassumption that the universe is all that there is and that the only time that can possibly exist is that which exists within the confines of our known universe.

You might as well say " there can be nothing other than the universe because there is nothing other than the universe".

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Do you have any proof for any of this or evidence? Or is it just your position and therefore a mere statement of faith..…

It comes from proof from reason -the reason that I have already explained (and twhitehead has just explained).[/b]

And what's your proof that the space/time we know of is the only space time in existence?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Of course I cannot refer to "motion" or "sequences of events" or "one event before another" without refering to the word time or time based language.

However , as I said before this is just semantics and language.

Time is just an abstract term we use to describe the events around us. The events that constitute the universe might be the only eve e nothing other than the universe because there is nothing other than the universe".

… Of course I cannot refer to "motion" or "sequences of events" or "one event before another" without referring to the word time or time based language.

However , as I said before this is just semantics and language.
..…

Ok -so explain to me what is it that we are referring to when we say “time” when, in a particular frame of reference, we say “event X occurred at time Y?” how is “time Y” a “series” of events when the only event referred to in that statement is “event X”? can you define this “time X” without making the definition circular by using the word “time” or using words that imply “time” such as “before” or “after” etc? (note that to talk about a “series of events” implies the existance of time because, for it to be a “series” of events, one event must come “before” or “after&rdquo😉.

… You have yet to show me why the time (series of events) within our known universe are the only "time" that can possibly exist. .. .…

-and that’s because that is NOT what I am saying.

…But this is not an argument really because it is based on a presumption that the universe is all that there is and that the only time that can possibly exist is that which exists within the confines of our known universe. . ….

Nope, I don’t have the “presumption” of either of the above for I do not exclude the possibility that other universes could exist. But if other universes exist then it is a reasonable assumption that they have their “own time” which would have nothing to do with the “time” in our universe because there is no evidence that implies that there is some other “kind“ of time that the time in each universe can exist in but which is “outside“ and independent of these other universes (assuming such “other” universes exist). In other words, IF other universes exist, then it is a reasonable assumption to make that it would be meaningless to say they exist “before“ or “after“ or “as the same time“ as our own universe else that would imply some kind of mysterious “higher order of time” and there is no evidence nor logical reason to believe that such a complex thing can or does exist.

you still have not answered my first question:
within a "series of events", one event come “before” or “after” another -yes?
-so can you define to me what is meant by the words “before” or “after” without reference to the word “time” or any word that implies it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
And what's your proof that the space/time we know of is the only space time in existence?

that is NOT what I am saying -read my last post.

I do not assume that the space-time in our universes is the only one in existence because I do not assume that our universe MUST necessarily be the only one.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… Of course I cannot refer to "motion" or "sequences of events" or "one event before another" without referring to the word time or time based language.

However , as I said before this is just semantics and language.
..…

Ok -so explain to me what is it that we are referring to when we say “time” when, in a particular frame of referenc ...[text shortened]... s no evidence nor logical reason to believe that such a complex thing can or does exist.[/b]

Ok -so explain to me what is it that we are referring to when we say “time” when, in a particular frame of reference, we say “event X occurred at time Y?” how is “time Y” a “series” of events when the only event referred to in that statement is “event X”? can you define this “time X” without making the definition circular by using the word “time” or using words that imply “time” such as “before” or “after” etc? -----hammy-------

I would simply say that event Y is dependent on event X , the rest would be obvious. Even if I said that event X happened before event Y that would have no bearing on whether time is real or not. All you are talking about is descriptive words here. Unless you can tell me what "time" is made of then it remains as abstract and descriptive as the word "beauty".

Do you think time is substantial?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok -so explain to me what is it that we are referring to when we say “time” when, in a particular frame of reference, we say “event X occurred at time Y?” how is “time Y” a “series” of events when the only event referred to in that statement is “event X”? can you define this “time X” without making the definition circular by using the word “time” or us ains as abstract and descriptive as the word "beauty".

Do you think time is substantial?

… I would simply say that event Y is dependent on event X ,
..…

What about those events in quantum physics that are not “dependent” on other events due to quantum randomness? It is still meaningful to say that such an event occurred at time X -yes? -so what does that mean if that event Y occurred at "time X" as a result of NO causally linked series of events nor any other kind of “series” of events?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that any event or existence outside of our known universe MUST be "at NO point in time". But this is not an argument really because it is based on a preassumption that the universe is all that there is and that the only time that can possibly exist is that which exists within the confines of our known universe.

I don't know why you are using the term "known universe". I see no reason why the future or the extreme past could not be 'unknown'. In fact I believe that the early stages of the big bang currently fall into that category.
The word universe is usually defined as including all existence within the known space and time dimensions and even within yet to be discovered dimensions that intersect with the known ones. If this is the definition then it is a fact by definition that an entity outside our universe cannot be placed in a point in time.
There may exist another dimension that is similar to the known time dimension and in which the universe only exists on part of it, but your use of the word 'before' always tries to invoke the idea that you are referring to a point on the known time dimension that you extend beyond the singularity at the start of the big bang. That shows you simply do not understand the concept of dimensions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know why you are using the term "known universe". I see no reason why the future or the extreme past could not be 'unknown'. In fact I believe that the early stages of the big bang currently fall into that category.
The word universe is usually defined as including all existence within the known space and time dimensions and even within yet to be start of the big bang. That shows you simply do not understand the concept of dimensions.

My use of the word before occurs because any language we use is going to be limited to what we know of our universe. I can only describe what may be unknown in relative terms based on what we do know.

Brian Greene does this using analogies and ideas like "strings" all the time but no-one seems that bothered. But then he's not a Theist is he.

Like hammy , you seem to be a semantically obsessed pedant who is seeking to disassemble an argument before it can cause to much damage.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]… How is science based on faith? Norman Geisler writes:

"Science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and , therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and…
..…

“scientists assume (by faith) that reason …”? that is the word mathematics are not just merely used as tools for science, they are a part of science itself.[/b]

==================================
“scientists assume (by faith) that reason …”? that is the words of a moron for he is pretending that: reason=blind faith.
=========================================

Aside from more ad hominems and the introduction of a new term, your's - "blind faith", I don't see much else here.

"Rubbish" .... "moron"

Insults of desparation like this just indicate to me the unraveling of weak ideas.

I think both you and twhitehead actually betray a contempt for science when you don't like where the evidence points.


==============
Science uses reason.
=================

I got to know that good science does. I never said it didn't.

No one said that science does not use reason. I said that science takes some assumptions to as a basis. These cannot be proved themselves by science.

You have crossed into a realm of what some people call scientism which is more of a religion.

Trying to prove the William Lane Craig gives us an example of five examples of rational beliefs which cannot be proven by science:

1.) mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them).

2.) metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own),

3.) ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazis were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method),

4.) aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven),

5.) Ironically, science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself).

===================================
If that reason was wrong then non of our modern technology world work -that is evidence that helps to give weight to reason without any “faith” for you only have to observe that technology works most of the time -no “faith” there -just use your eyes.
======================================

I wager that you cannot also prove "technological advancement" by the scientific method.

The invention of the computer, the invention of the calculator, of the automobile, the telephone, vaccine. Can science prove that these things have the net effect of advancing society?

I doubt that the science can prove that technology has advanced society. That lies in another realm of philosophy. I mean how many people are put out of employment by one computer in a company?

Science has a faith or an assumption that technological advancement is bettering mankind's life on earth. Science cannot prove that. It assumes that.

Do we really KNOW that a cure for cancer is what the human race needs ?

Ethicicsts, theologians, and philosophers must apply thier skills to handle that question.

Now if you call Robert Jastrow or Norm Geisler a "moron" once more I'm likely to call you an "impudent punk" who, in spite of your arrogance, is not likely to accomplish as much as he has in life.

Or have you, like Robert Jastrow or Norm Giesler, founded a research institute and published at least one book that I know of ?