|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Detecting God | |||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I'll agree that our universe (which may be embedded in a larger universe) is probably finite spatially, and temporally in the pastward direction. I don't think that I can go further on that, but let's say that that satisfies.
quote: These are essentially the same question and my answer is that it depends on what you consider "nothing". However, let's say "yes" for the sake of argument.
quote: Definitely no. It doesn't seem to follow at all.
quote: No.
quote: I don't know of one. "God" is definitely a poor choice because it refers to a personal entity and no personal qualities are even mentioned above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Our universe would be the bubble of spacetime that we inhabit plus its contents. Since we can't see "beyond" it, we can't know if there is anything else or if there is whether it is infinite or finite. And I ought to add that that is definitely not the definition you were using. If there is at least one infinite entity then "everything that exists" (which must include this entity) is also infinite.
quote: I am saying that I see no reason why that could not be the case.
quote: No, it does not. Indeed I cannot see how any reasonable, sane individual could come to such a conclusion. How does the mere suggestion that a finite entity might have a finite cause imply "something finite can exist in an infinite number" ? And why, if we accept the possibility of infinite entities could it then be impossible for there to be an infinite number of finite entities ?
quote: Even if it does (and I am not convinced because you have to rule out a cyclic relationship where the collective is self-sustaining but none of the entities that make it up are) that doesn't alter the fact that my statement is entirely correct.
quote: If we can't work out whether the thing we are detecting is God or not, then how can we know that we've detected God ? And I would regard personality as being more important than being infinite or self-sustaining or even creating our universe. Mythology is full of Gods which are finite, not self-sustaining and played little or no role in creating our universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Firstly you must remember that I am NOT saying that there is anything beyond our universe - simply that we do not know. That is hardly speculation. And I don' think that speculations are necessarily "grasping at straws" - you'd have to argue more to make that claim.
quote: Firstly if your entity existed prior to our universe it would still be a part of "universe" as you have defined it. And it is obvious that if part of a thing is infinite, the whole must also be infinite. If you define "universe" to mean "everything that exists" the universe can only be finite if there are a finite number of finite entities existing.
quote: In dealing with something so speculative it seems foolish to rule out possibilities just because we have few relevant observations. That seems to me to be nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
quote: No, we would not. Why would we have to ?
quote: Ah, so now you are assuming that there was a time when there WAS nothing ? And you assume that your infinite self-sustaining being can come from nothing ? Because if you do not assume that you have just made another non-sequitur.
quote: No, I don't. Because it isn't true.
quote: No, it does not. Assuming that you mean temporal infinity (which is far from clear !) then you must also assume that past time is infinite for your argument to work. However it is far from clear that past time is infinite and if it is then our universe must be either temporally infinite in the pastward direction or embedded in a larger spacetime which IS temporally infinite. And so far as I can tell you reject both those options.
quote: Fair enough - just don't go calling it "God" until we have got that far.
quote: I don't think we can rule out it's relevance to what we consider a god - at least not for a long time to come. It's an essential part of the history of the concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Hey, I'm just pointing out that your definition doesn't work with your argument. And if you don't have a problem with that - then you have a problem.
quote: By which you mean that if we don't make excuses to rule out possibilities that you don't like we might not reach the conclusion you want ?
quote: Then I guess that we'd better throw out the idea of an anthropomorphic god that actually takes an interest in the happenings on Earth. That's more ridiculous than anything I've suggested. Or maybe you shouldn't be so quick to call possibilities "ridiculous".
quote: Does it ? Because there are some problems with that idea...
quote: Are you sure of that ? It's certainly possible that our universe has an infinite future and there seems to be no clear reason why it does not.
quote: But what if all the links are infinite ? Then your argument doesn't apply Remember this group of entities is proposed as an alternative to a single self-sustaining infinite entity.
quote: And infinite things presumably can. So why can't the cyclicly-sustaining group of entities be infinite ?
quote: And you would be wrong. Because logic doesn't demand that past time is infinite. And if past time is finite you can't conclude that there is anything with an infinite past - which seems to be the only use of "infinite" that you are interested in. (And if you mean "infinite" in any other respect, your whole argument is even less logical).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Well you clearly haven't got that far. Even if your argument worked, it doesn't get so far as a hands-off Deist God.
quote: Well aside from the fact that as far as I know Dawkins didn't invent the FSM, we also have the fact that the possibilities you want to reject aren't made up to mock anybody. They're simply serious suggestions that your argument fails to consider. So I don't think that you are acting in keeping with your handle at all.
quote: If past time is finite, then everything must be finite in the only sense your argument seems to use (temporally finite in the pastward direction). Which leads to all sorts of problems - such as everything requiring a cause.
quote: Well you're wrong, because the "winding down" refers to "heat death" (maximal entropy). If the Universe is "open" (and last I heard it probably was) it will go on expanding for ever. It's just that it will reach a point where practically nothing will be happening.
quote: No, you're sensing YOUR agreement with what I originally said.
quote: No, that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about a literal limit to past time. And it could well be that there is no time before the Big Bang.
quote: Firstly maybe when you talk about "time before time" you don't literally mean it but that is a damn poor way to do logic. Secondly begging the question is not valid logic. Your argument that past time is infinite starts by assuming the conclusion - logic says bad boy, no cookie, go to the back of the class to that one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Could you please, please try to use logic correctly ? Or at least not claim that logic says things that it plainly does not ?
quote: By which you mean a single mention in the concluding section of a reasonable length essay. Is it really that important to attach his name to it when we aren't even discussing him or his arguments ?
quote: No, that wasn't all that you were saying and I am quite free to refute the other points as well. But the lack of observational evidence cuts both ways. We don't have any observations supporting the existence of aself-sustaining infinite being either. In fact we have no observations of anything before the Big Bang (and we can't) - nor do we even know if there was a time before the Big Bang. So we are dealing with speculations without observational support whichever way you cut it.
quote: It's not finite because it doesn't have a real ending. It just goes on, with almost nothing happening.
quote: Except of course, we have the real possibility that past time is finite. And it it is then your argument doesn't work at all. And if it isn't then you have the problem that either our universe is infinite in the pastward direction too, or it is embedded in a spacetime that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And if you don't want to be criticised then a little more humility might be in order. Don't brag about logic being on your side when all you do is simply assume that you're right. Triumphailism just begs for deflation,
quote: OK.
quote: Let us note that it is definitely false that we need a sufficient cause...
quote: NO. You've just run into the Problem of Induction. Inductive arguments fall short of logical proofs.
quote: Unfortunately our observations apply only to finite space and time. Infinite space would be expected to contain infinite matter and infinite time could certainly accommodate an infinite succession.
quote: False. If time is finite then we do not need to invoke infinite beings.
quote: And that includes the very point you were trying to reject. Thus you admit that you have no observations which let you reject a group that mutually sustain each other in favour of a single self--sustaining entity. So now we've looked and found that you were wrong we can move on from this point.
quote: I don't have time to read up on a lot of cosmology just now, but let me point out that it seems to be taken seriously among cosmologists who would be a lot more familiar with the evidence than either of us. Also, if you want our universe to be really finite and have an infinite past, you actually need what you call the "bubble universe" to be true.
quote: Which refers to death, which as we know is the end of the person. The universe is not a person, nor actually alive so clearly that doesn't apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect.
quote: But your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time. (Indeed since space is never entirely empty we know that we cannot validly extend it to infinite space).
quote: Of course I am NOT rejecting an entire worldview on that basis. I am REFUSING to reject a possibility on the grounds that the experts consider it plausible. That is a very different matter.
quote: But you aren't doing any such thing. Instead you are offering flawed arguments, based on material you clearly don't understand. If your intent is to convince then you really really need to provide good arguments instead of trying to pass off your opinions as truths of logic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, that's not it. That's not it at all. As you've already admitted your argument doesn't get you to God or anywhere near. And you haven't even gotten to the really difficult parts. If your argument was any good I'd have had no problem accepting it. However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics. for instance you refuse to accept that time could be finite, because your argument requires that past time is infinite. But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps). The fact is that your argument - even the section you've presented here doesn't work. If it did I'd have accepted it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: What's wrong with the ones I've already pointed out ? For instance your assumption that the universe has a finite future, when in fact the matter is not settled and last I heard it leans the other way ? Or how about the illogic in your argument that since we, as finite creatures observing a finite portion of space and time can only see a finite number of entities we should assume that the total number of entities that have ever existed is also finite, even given infinite time ? You cannot validly assume that our limitations limit reality. And in fact we do have observations that would suggest otherwise. We know that the vacuum is not empty. Instead it is a sea of particles flickering in and out of existence. If we extend this observation into infinite time, does it not follow that there must have been an infinite number of finite entities ?
quote: I am saying disagreeing with your opinion is not the same as rejecting God. Despite your attempts to paint it that way. We can add that in fact that we do not know if time is finite or infinite - so relying on either would be a fault in your argument. We can further add that neither option in fact offers any help to your argument.
quote: Well the first thing I would ask you is how is this relevant ? How does it help your argument ? If time does not really exist then nothing can be temporally infinite, yet your whole argument rests on asserting that there must be a temporally infinite being. You cannot have a temporally infinite being unless time is both real and infinite.
quote: Well to point out the holes in the reasoning here: 1) You are arguing now that time is finite, at least in the pastward direction. But an infinite past was the only aspect of infinity that you have argued FOR. So now we have no need to invoke an infinite being in any respect. 2) Your argument that time depends on matter is a mere assertion (and in fact false, since matter did not exist in the very earliest stages of the universe). It is far better to treat time as a dimension (like length and width) as physics does. Or alternatively we can relate time to change. You can argue that a completely unchanging entity is "timeless" in some sense. However, by definition such an entity can do nothing (since doing anything would be a change). That doesn't seem to offer any help to you, either. 3) You have offered no sound argument for an infinite source and therefore you cannot rule out a finite source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So you had one source that was irrelevant and another which you misunderstood. Might I suggest taking a little more care ?
quote: Complete and utter nonsense.
quote: So lets deal with the problems. Firstly this is a completely different argument which fails to even address the point. Secondly it is NOT a mathematical argument (and it contains no mathematics at all!). Thirdly if you assume an infinite past (as you do) you need to explain why we have not already reached the state of maximum entropy. Good luck doing that without violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics or resorting to special pleading. (And yes, invoking an infinite energy source does amount to throwing out thermodynamics)
quote: Wrong as usual. The "jump" is justified by the assumption of infinite past time. If there were even a finitely small probability of a virtual particle coming into existence at each moment in time the total would be infinite, given infinite time. (Hint, what do you get if you multiply a finite number greater than zero by infinity ?)
quote: Now you are departing from logic again. Your ability to imagine conditions under which your assertions could be true does not make them true. And in this case you would have to assume that there was only a finite amount of the infinite past in which there was any space at all. That's a pretty big assumption, even without the fact that space and time are linked.
quote: Which is completely irrelevant to the point. Remember your argument was that there COULD NOT be an infinite number of finite things. How does the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in our universe relate to that claim (which goes beyond our universe) ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024