Originally posted by sonshipCheck out Hawking radiation caused by "something from nothing".
[ I don't think quantum mechanics is going to rescue us from assuming causation in the natural world. It may help us find that there are causes which are too tiny or too quick for us to be able to detect or measure with our present day tools.
Originally posted by sonshipIf there are a hundred or a million possible mutually exclusive things all of which 'might be so' then you need a good reason to think that one of them 'is so'.
I think there is no really good reason why it shouldn't be so.
Simply stating that you cant think of a reason why it isn't so, isn't good enough.
I am sure it could be.
I think so also.
Except you think it is. I only think it is a minor possibility.
I don't think quantum mechanics is going to rescue us from assuming causation in the natural world.
I am not convinced we need rescuing. In fact, the opposite is true. The current situation in quantum mechanics is that there is a distinct absence of causation and most people are very uncomfortable with this - your self included. The problem is you have no genuine justification for wanting to be rescued, not even a religious one.
It may help us find that there are causes which are too tiny or too quick for us to be able to detect or measure with our present day tools.
And if that is the case, we'll just have to accept that.
You mean you will assume causation despite a total absence of evidence? Sounds like you have a religious belief in it.
Your stuck in the dark ages. Modern science simply isn't like the Newtonian mechanics we are comfortable with and no amount of belief is going to get you away from relativity and quantum mechanics. The fact is that the universe is not Newtonian.
I think quantum mechanics theory or whatever you want to call it actually shows a connectedness between distance particles and proves a connectedness throughout the universe. As far as nothingness how can something come from nothing? think absolute nothing no matter or time / space nothing absolutely just does not seem rational
Manny
Originally posted by menace71I am not convinced that any such connectedness is shown. Certainly pure causation is not shown.
I think quantum mechanics theory or whatever you want to call it actually shows a connectedness between distance particles and proves a connectedness throughout the universe. As far as nothingness how can something come from nothing? think absolute nothing no matter or time / space nothing absolutely just does not seem rational
Manny
I don't think it is even meaningful to suggest that something can come from pure nothing as that gives nothing a place in a dimension whereas pure nothing is without position. So yes, I agree, it is irrational. Of course, this doesn't prove that time or space are infinite.
Originally posted by sonshipMy internet is realty slow today, so I will work through it bit by bit as it downloads.
I think there is no really good reason why it shouldn't be so.
I think philosopher J P Moreland explains that very well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZJ_i-Pcn6I
1. It is obvious from the very beginning of the video that he is not a philosopher, but a Christian apologist.
2. Near the beginning he states that everyone must take a side on whether the universe had a beginning or not. This is false. I for one do not know the answer and cannot take a side.
3. He makes a fundamental error regarding dimensions and time. He defines the universe as all space and time, then talks about a 'cause' for the universe as a whole even though the word 'cause' is only meaningful within the space/time framework.
4. Then he starts up an argument from infinity. Of course he shouldn't have tried that before reading up on Zeno's paradox. He is wrong. If his argument held then he would have proved that the set of integers was finite, and in fact that infinity could not exist. There is no philosophical argument that successfully proves that time is finite. In fact many physicists believe that time in the future is infinite.
Note further how he says 'many people in the past have proposed this argument' but he doesn't actually reference any mathematicians to back him up.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
My internet is realty slow today, so I will work through it bit by bit as it downloads.
1. It is obvious from the very beginning of the video that he is not a philosopher, but a Christian apologist.
A Christian apologist can be a philodopher and a philosopher can also be a Chrisrtian apologist.
In the same way an atheist can be a philosopher and a philsopher can be an apologist for atheism.
Come now. Alvin Plantingo, J P Moreland, and some others are philosophers too as well as Christian apologists. I think you should just get use to that. You should not write them off as not trained in philosophy merely because they do Christian apologetics too.
I would not say Anthony Flew was not a philsopher because he was a skilled debater on behalf of Atheism. Nor would I say that of David Hume or Bertrand Russell - "Oh, he is not a philsopher. He is an apologist for Atheism."
In my opinion, it is worth watching the entire video.
Originally posted by sonshipQuite so. Nevertheless, he is clearly not philosophizing, but instead trying to prove the existence of God (a forgone conclusion for him) by torturing philosophy.
A Christian apologist can be a philodopher and a philosopher can also be a Chrisrtian apologist.
Come now. Alvin Plantingo, J P Moreland, and some others are philosophers too as well as Christian apologists. I think you should just get use to that.
I think a person should show at least some evidence of familiarity with philosophy before we call him a philosopher. Even someone as unskilled as I have pointed out mistakes with just about every single point he makes (for the bit I have watched so far). Sure, anyone can philosophize, but to deserve the title 'philosopher' it seams reasonable that you think before you open your mouth.
In my opinion, it is worth watching the entire video.
Will do. However, in return, I expect some discussion of each point. If you agree with me that he is wrong on any point then say so. If you do not, then we can discuss it.
5. He claims that the second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. But he forgets about multiverse theories. In a multiverse, his definition of 'universe' is all universes put together. Each universe in a multiverse might have increasing entropy, but that does not imply that the multiverse as a whole had a beginning.
7. He argues from incredulity that something cannot come into existence out of nothing. He gives as counter examples the lack of common place goats appearing out of nothing. Here he is making two errors: a) physical things popping into existence within space time are quite a different matter from the issue being discussed. b) quantum mechanics says quite clearly that it is possible for a goat to pop into existence and that smaller objects do pop into and out of existence all the time.
Originally posted by twhiteheadFurthermore, there is no reason to believe that other universe operate by the same laws as ours. The 2nd law of thermodynamics might work differently or even not exist in other universes!
5. He claims that the second law of thermodynamics proves the universe had a beginning. But he forgets about multiverse theories. In a multiverse, his definition of 'universe' is all universes put together. Each universe in a multiverse might have increasing entropy, but that does not imply that the multiverse as a whole had a beginning.
9. Next he make a ridiculous argument about ipod lending eventually concluding that everything except a 'being' called God, owes its existence to something else. Not only does the whole 'being' concept appear out of thin air, but the whole concept that existence can be passed on is not proven or even explained. He just assumes it to be the case. Further he assumes a finite chain of existence passing on.
10. Now he suddenly brings up the concept of a timeless, space-less, immaterial entity, but doesn't seem to understand the consequences of such a claim.
11. He claims it is supernatural, but defines that as not subject to the laws of physics, but his argument is based on the assumption that the being created the laws of physics - not something he has provided any argument for.
12. He claims the being must have had free will. But then interestingly he defines free will in terms of time and space despite already claiming the entity in question was timeless and spaces less.
13. At this point he is basically just trying to confuse the audience with concepts of time that he himself clearly doesn't understand.
Its interesting that he defines 'free will' as 'random, uncaused action'. Hilarious.
14. But then he suddenly contradicts himself completely and says that free will is caused by a mind and emotions which he feels he can now assign to God.
Sonship , seriously, did you actually listen to this video? You thought that was a good argument? Or did you just like the conclusion?