Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 391 of 414 (145372)
09-28-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by General Nazort
09-28-2004 1:25 PM


Two questions
In what sense does the law of non-contradiction apply to the universe rather than to statements ?
Given that sense how can it have a source ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 1:25 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 6:19 PM PaulK has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7013 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 392 of 414 (145383)
09-28-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by General Nazort
09-28-2004 1:30 PM


quote:
What is illogical about it?
You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 1:30 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 6:17 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 398 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:00 PM Rei has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 393 of 414 (145438)
09-28-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Rei
09-28-2004 2:04 PM


You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?
I'm not arguing that quantum fluctuations can't exist without a cause, I am arguing that there is an underlying cause. Why is there an underlying cause? Because QM still has some problems that seem to indicate it is an incomplete theory.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:04 PM Rei has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 394 of 414 (145439)
09-28-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by PaulK
09-28-2004 1:39 PM


Re: Two questions
In what sense does the law of non-contradiction apply to the universe rather than to statements ?
In every sense.
Given that sense how can it have a source ?
What do you mean?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 1:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 6:32 PM General Nazort has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 395 of 414 (145450)
09-28-2004 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by General Nazort
09-28-2004 6:19 PM


Re: Two questions
What do you mean "in every sense" ? To what other than statements CAN a semantic rule like the law of non-contradiction apply ?
And the question of how the law of non-contradiction could have a source seems clear enough - how could such a source operate ? How do you avoid getting trapped in a vicious circularity ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 6:19 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:07 PM PaulK has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 396 of 414 (145520)
09-28-2004 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by General Nazort
09-28-2004 1:25 PM


GN
What do you mean how does he affect it? You don't have to be inside something to affect it. I can be outside of something and have an effect on it quite easily.
Yes,you,a material being,can affect a material
item that is outside your existence.However the problem is how a god who is outside of our material world and is thereby immaterial is able to affect the material.

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by General Nazort, posted 09-28-2004 1:25 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:04 PM sidelined has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 414 (145845)
09-29-2004 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by crashfrog
09-24-2004 8:01 PM


Isn't it logical to be suspicious of any theory of gravity that doesn't account for QM?
Yes - something is wrong with relativity as well.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2004 8:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 398 of 414 (145847)
09-29-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Rei
09-28-2004 2:04 PM


You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?
No, I am asking what is illogical about pointing out that QM has some problems and therefore something is probably going on that we don't know about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:04 PM Rei has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 399 of 414 (145854)
09-29-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by sidelined
09-28-2004 11:45 PM


However the problem is how a god who is outside of our material world and is thereby immaterial is able to affect the material.
God speaks and it happens. He can do it because it is in his power to do it.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by sidelined, posted 09-28-2004 11:45 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by sidelined, posted 09-30-2004 8:05 AM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 400 of 414 (145856)
09-29-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by PaulK
09-28-2004 6:32 PM


Re: Two questions
What do you mean "in every sense" ? To what other than statements CAN a semantic rule like the law of non-contradiction apply ?
How about a star cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way?
And the question of how the law of non-contradiction could have a source seems clear enough - how could such a source operate ?
The source is the nature of God. I guess you could say it operates because God operates.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 6:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 3:59 AM General Nazort has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 401 of 414 (145897)
09-30-2004 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by General Nazort
09-29-2004 11:07 PM


Re: Two questions
You mean that the statements " exists" and " does not exist" cannot both be true unless the identification of the star or the understanding of existence are different (i.e. there are differneces in semantic content of the statements other than the fact that the latter contains a negation).
It's all about statements and the meaning of negation. Haven't you noticed that the law of the excluded middle is often not applied in natural language ? But that law is as fundamental to simple predicate logic as non-contradiction.
I suggest that you consider wave-particle duality, understand why it is not a contradiction and see for yourself how we would resolve "contradictions" in reality.
And you still aren't explaining how a source of "non-contradiction" is even possible or how it could work. Maybe in the circles you travel in "God does it" is an adequate answer - even though it is more of an evasion than an answer. It isn't here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:07 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by General Nazort, posted 10-01-2004 1:14 PM PaulK has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 402 of 414 (145917)
09-30-2004 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by General Nazort
09-29-2004 11:04 PM


General Nazort
God speaks and it happens.
Do you see how such a statement does not bring any clarity to the issue? You believe that such is the case I am sure,however,what do you mean by this? How does god speak?I hear these comparisons over and over again between god and humans but such does not make sense.
You say that god is nothing like us yet {immaterial} yet you imbue him with qulities like speech {material} and then merely say that it happens because he can do it.How do you know this?
He can do it because it is in his power to do it.
Yes by contradicting the very laws of physics and leaving no trace. I am sorry if I seem dense to you but these statements are meaningless in that they do not address the issue of how such a thing is done.We can say such things without qualification as long as we do not press ourselves to explain this absurdity to ourselves.

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by General Nazort, posted 09-29-2004 11:04 PM General Nazort has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 403 by General Nazort, posted 10-01-2004 11:42 AM sidelined has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 414 (146474)
10-01-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by sidelined
09-30-2004 8:05 AM


You say that god is nothing like us yet {immaterial} yet you imbue him with qulities like speech {material} and then merely say that it happens because he can do it.How do you know this?
God is like us in some ways - we are made in his image after all. God is a person, and we reflect this in being persons as well - people who can think, talk, have emotions, etc. And while we have physical bodies, we also have "immaterial" spiritual souls.
I am sorry if I seem dense to you but these statements are meaningless in that they do not address the issue of how such a thing is done.We can say such things without qualification as long as we do not press ourselves to explain this absurdity to ourselves.
So you are saying that God cannot have the innate quality of being able to create the material universe?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by sidelined, posted 09-30-2004 8:05 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2004 9:47 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 404 of 414 (146492)
10-01-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by PaulK
09-30-2004 3:59 AM


Re: Two questions
You mean that the statements " exists" and " does not exist" cannot both be true unless the identification of the star or the understanding of existence are different
Yes,
i.e. there are differneces in semantic content of the statements other than the fact that the latter contains a negation
Yes,
It's all about statements and the meaning of negation. Haven't you noticed that the law of the excluded middle is often not applied in natural language ? But that law is as fundamental to simple predicate logic as non-contradiction.
The law of the excluded middle is that for any proposition P, it is true that P is true or not P is not true, right?
I suggest that you consider wave-particle duality, understand why it is not a contradiction
I agree that this is not a contradiction - light acts like a wave AND acts like a particle.
and see for yourself how we would resolve "contradictions" in reality.
If something is truly a contradiction it cannot be resolved...
And you still aren't explaining how a source of "non-contradiction" is even possible or how it could work. Maybe in the circles you travel in "God does it" is an adequate answer - even though it is more of an evasion than an answer. It isn't here.
How would you explain it, in the circles you travel?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 3:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2004 1:25 PM General Nazort has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 405 of 414 (146493)
10-01-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by General Nazort
10-01-2004 1:14 PM


Re: Two questions
With regard to the law of the excluded middle you have it correctly. However it is frequently not used in normal speech (e.g. "I do not beleive that God exists" often means "I do not beleive that God exists" - in a formal two-valued logic this violates the law of the excluded middle).
With regard to wave-particle duality there is a contradiction between the behaviour of a particle and that of a wave. That is, light must formally speaking be neither but instead something that bheaves in some ways like both. And this points again to logic being an issue of semantics, since the resolution of the contradiction is to point out that light neither fully fits the definition of a wave nor of a particle.
As to the idea of "non-contradiction" having a source I wouldn't even try to explain it. I reject the idea on the grounds that it makes no sense to me. That's why I asked you fro your explanation to see if you had thought of something I'd missed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by General Nazort, posted 10-01-2004 1:14 PM General Nazort has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024