DHPG: The Science of Evolutionism: A Deconstruction Analysis and Refutation...

[Dre89]

How about an example from the theory of evolution itself?

RDK said talking about time before BB is meaningless. It doesn't suprise me because evolutionists admit they don't have an adequate explanation of these kind of issues.

Or you could say space-time has always been around, and achieving a state outside of space-time is impossible and practically doesn't exist (no boundary proposal). For example, you could choose to look at frame 1 of time and see what it is like, then look at frame 1/2, then frame 1/4, or frame 1/10,000, or frame 10^(-15). You can always choose a smaller unit of time after which the big bang can be seen, but 0? Never, since 0 isn't possible.

This is flawed on a few levels. Infinite time does not allow for change, I've explained this a billion times and am not going to do so again lol. Considering we know change exists in the world, time must be finite. Secondly, even if infinite time allowed for change, you're arguing that time and space are self-necessary entities, yet they cannot be so, because they are dependant on each other. You cannot have two self-necessary entities.

Okay. My point here is that it doesn't cause itself to exist, but maybe it just exists. You know?

I think you're trolling me now lol. Anyway I've explained why the infinite regress of time is illogical.

 

[Mewter]

RDK said talking about time before BB is meaningless. It doesn't suprise me because evolutionists admit they don't have an adequate explanation of these kind of issues.

You didn't answer my question.

This is flawed on a few levels. Infinite time does not allow for change, I've explained this a billion times and am not going to do so again lol. Considering we know change exists in the world, time must be finite. Secondly, even if infinite time allowed for change, you're arguing that time and space are self-necessary entities, yet they cannot be so, because they are dependant on each other. You cannot have two self-necessary entities.

I never said infinite time. I just said (taking t=time) that t≠0.

I think you're trolling me now lol. Anyway I've explained why the infinite regress of time is illogical.

This doesn't have to do with my point of fractional regression, so I won't argue it.

 

[Dre89]

You didn't answer my question.

Well then I'm confused as to what you're asking sorry lol.

I never said infinite time. I just said (taking t=time) that t≠0.

But you're still claiming that time and space are self-necessary entities, but you can't have two self-necessary entities, because they are dependant on each other.

If time is not infinite, then then it must have somehow come into existence. Saying 'it has always been around' then later admitting it is not infinite, is masking the fact that it is finite, but does not need a cause.

You're suggesting that it doesn't need a cause, but all things that have beginning still require a prior actuallity to be caused.

So how exactly do you suppose that time is finite, yet doesn't need a cause?

Even the cause-and-effect system itself is a law, or an actuallity, that no-one is really accounting for.

 

[Mewter]

Well then I'm confused as to what you're asking sorry lol.

The word evolutionist is properly used while talking about evolution. Evolutionist and big-bang theory supporter are two different things, so I guess this came out of more a misunderstanding than anything else.

But you're still claiming that time and space are self-necessary entities, but you can't have two self-necessary entities, because they are dependant on each other.

Actually, you could claim that they are the same thing: space-time.

If time is not infinite, then then it must have somehow come into existence. Saying 'it has always been around' then later admitting it is not infinite, is masking the fact that it is finite, but does not need a cause.

It's only logical to say time has been around forever; it's impossible for there to have been a time when time wasn't around.

You're suggesting that it doesn't need a cause, but all things that have beginning still require a prior actuality to be caused. So how exactly do you suppose that time is finite, yet doesn't need a cause?

Even the cause-and-effect system itself is a law, or an actuality, that no-one is really accounting for.

Maybe it simply exists? Idunno.
It's not that far-fetch'd if a higher being is allowed to do that. Skips a step.
Kind of like the question "how does space-time keep itself sustained?" Maybe it just does. I'm just arguing that it's a possibility.

 

[Dre89]

Actually, you could claim that they are the same thing: space-time.

That's a good point, but I guess they are separable in that you could manipulate space without doing so to time, and vice versa.

It's only logical to say time has been around forever; it's impossible for there to have been a time when time wasn't around.

Of course within this universe, or 'realm' even it has been around forever, but the question is has this universe been around forever. We know that time has a start and end point.

Everyone always talks about entities within the universe, but no one seems to talk about the universe as an entity itself. Thinking about the universe the second way has made come from different angles than alot of other people. For example, how can the universe exist in time and space, when time and space only exist in the universe? How can the universe exist in materiality, when materiality only exists in the universe? This has lead me to believe that the universe is in fact immaterial, and the experience of materiality is a result of human perception.

Maybe it simply exists? Idunno.
It's not that far-fetch'd if a higher being is allowed to do that. Skips a step.
Kind of like the question "how does space-time keep itself sustained?" Maybe it just does. I'm just arguing that it's a possibility.

A Higher Being is of completely different properties though, one being that it is eternal, I would disagree it does.

Of course your suggestion is a possibility, it's not as if I don't consider other possibilites. I just believe that logic rules them out though, but then again it'd be ignorant to think that amongst all the learned academics that have existed that my logic would reign supreme lol.

 

[Reaver197]

A Higher Being is of completely different properties though, one being that it is eternal, I would disagree it does.

It's statements like these that need to be fixed in order to become a solid, evidence-based debater.

You can't dismiss/counter an argument just by saying that "thing X has properties Y that invalidate your argument", and just leave it at that.

How do you know that X has those properties? How do you determine that? What is it that imbues them with those properties? What are the conditions of its properties? What are the other properties that result from its nature?

If you can't back up such questions with evidence and verified material, then it's an argument you really can't make or use, cause then you're just claiming it by fiat than by any basis in reality.

 

[Dre89]

It's statements like these that need to be fixed in order to become a solid, evidence-based debater.

You can't dismiss/counter an argument just by saying that "thing X has properties Y that invalidate your argument", and just leave it at that.

How do you know that X has those properties? How do you determine that? What is it that imbues them with those properties? What are the conditions of its properties? What are the other properties that result from its nature?

If you can't back up such questions with evidence and verified material, then it's an argument you really can't make or use, cause then you're just claiming it by fiat than by any basis in reality.

The thing is, I've explained in about 2 other threads many times, and most of the people in this thread have been in the other threads as well.

It becomes tiring constantly repreating yourself with long posts lol.

 

[Reaver197]

You can quote back to previous posts, if you feel they are related enough to get the point across. I'm afraid I haven't read every post of every thread, so, if you feel I'm telling you something you've already responded to, feel free to simply quote back to it.

However, if many people are giving you a similar critique in how you're debating and presenting your arguments, you may want to lend it some credence and quite possibly accept that it is something you need to fix or revise.

 

[Eor]

Everyone always talks about entities within the universe, but no one seems to talk about the universe as an entity itself. Thinking about the universe the second way has made come from different angles than alot of other people. For example, how can the universe exist in time and space, when time and space only exist in the universe? How can the universe exist in materiality, when materiality only exists in the universe? This has lead me to believe that the universe is in fact immaterial, and the experience of materiality is a result of human perception.

What? That makes absolutely no sense. Spacetime is an aspect of the universe. Saying that it exists "in it" makes literally, 100% no sense. That's like saying a blue car exists in blue.

 

[Dre89]

Here is a quote from when asked why a natural entity couldn't do the same things I was saying only a God could do, basically it's same question as before.

Bear in mind though, some of the stuff I say here presumes you've read some of my previous posts. Basically, some of the premises are overlysimplified without too much explanation because people would have already read those explanations.

There are certain traits God must have. He must be self-necessary, must be able to exist independant of any other entity, and must be eternal (which subsequently does not allow for change). If He is not those, He cannot be the original being, or non-being.

The reason why God must be eternal is that to be self-necessary, you can not have had a beginning, for all that begins is caused by a prior actuallity, and therefore is not self-necessary.

To be eternal, you cannot have change. As soon as you have change, you have a created a reference point, which means God exists in an event-by-event sequence (finite time), meaning that He cannot be self-necessary, for He would be dependant on time.

This is why I feel only God could be the original being. Because of the change, and event-by-event sequence evident in the world, we know that time is finite. Therefore, it could not be a natural entity, for all natural entities are finite.

Basically, the original being must have been eternal, yet only a self-necessary entity could be eternal, yet natural entities are not self-necessary. For an entity to be self necessary, it is no longer natural, it is beyond natural, therefore contradicting the essence of natural entities. Obviously, there can only be one self-necessary entity.

That doesn't mean there can't be other 'supernatural' entities, such as angels etc., just that if they exist, they would not be self-necessary and not eternal. What would make them supernatural is that they would be able to transcend the universe and it's laws, but that's another story.

Hope it all made sense.

 

[Dre89]

What? That makes absolutely no sense. Spacetime is an aspect of the universe. Saying that it exists "in it" makes literally, 100% no sense. That's like saying a blue car exists in blue.

Space and time are laws of the universe. If you were to consider the essence of the universe, space and time are merely traits that contribute to that essence.

 

[Eor]

Space and time are laws of the universe. If you were to consider the essence of the universe, space and time are merely traits that contribute to that essence.

Uh, essence of the universe? Could you please define that, because to me that seems like metaphysical mumbo jumbo

 

[Dre89]

Uh, essence of the universe? Could you please define that, because to me that seems like metaphysical mumbo jumbo

Ok I'm going to have to think of something wacky to try explain it to you-

Suppose there is a multiverse, and there are in fact five separate realms, one of which contains our universe.

If you were to observe our universe from an outside perspective, you'd notice that what makes our universe distinct is that it is material, and has laws such as space and time etc.

The other universes may not be material, and function on space and time etc.

The essence of the universe is what makes up the universe, what constitues it. Traits such as space and time may not exist in other 'entities' outside the universe.

Hope that made sense.

 

[Eor]

Ok I'm going to have to think of something wacky to try explain it to you-

Suppose there is a multiverse, and there are in fact five separate realms, one of which contains our universe.

If you were to observe our universe from an outside perspective, you'd notice that what makes our universe distinct is that it is material, and has laws such as space and time etc.

The other universes may not be material, and function on space and time etc.

The essence of the universe is what makes up the universe, what constitues it. Traits such as space and time may not exist in other 'entities' outside the universe.

Hope that made sense.

Yeah, that makes sense. But it also seems to completely contradict your earlier claim that the Universe exists inside space and time.

 

[GoldShadow]

Admittedly, I skipped much of this thread, but how did an argument about evolution turn into one about multiple universes?

 

[Dre89]

Yeah, that makes sense. But it also seems to completely contradict your earlier claim that the Universe exists inside space and time.

When did I make that claim?

What I would have meant was that the universe is governed by space and time, which doesn't really contradict anything I said.

Edit- Goldshadow, I was using a multiple universe scenario to explain to Eor what I meant when I was talking about the universe as an entity, or the essence of the universe.

 

[Eor]

Everyone always talks about entities within the universe, but no one seems to talk about the universe as an entity itself. Thinking about the universe the second way has made come from different angles than alot of other people. For example, how can the universe exist in time and space, when time and space only exist in the universe? How can the universe exist in materiality, when materiality only exists in the universe? This has lead me to believe that the universe is in fact immaterial, and the experience of materiality is a result of human perception."

It was what I quoted in my post that you responded to.

 

[Dre89]

It was what I quoted in my post that you responded to.

What I meant was that time and space were properties that perhaps only the universe is governed by.

I thought saying that they are inside the universe would be interpreted as the same thing.

 

[Eor]

Yes, very possible that any theoretical other universes wouldn't have spacetime. How does that tie into your beliefs that the universe is immaterial?

 

[Reaver197]

Here is a quote from when asked why a natural entity couldn't do the same things I was saying only a God could do, basically it's same question as before.

Bear in mind though, some of the stuff I say here presumes you've read some of my previous posts. Basically, some of the premises are overlysimplified without too much explanation because people would have already read those explanations.

My earlier point still stands. You still have bring no evidence or basis to start with any of the presuppositions that a god must be eternal, or self-necessary. How do you even deduce what traits a god might have? The question I'm trying to ask is how do you know what you know?

Not to mention that your account of a god clearly is in contradiction with his supposed behavior and actions that was ostensibly performed by him, which clearly needed a physical form, Thus, he was something subject to the laws of physics, and thus changeable. Otherwise, how else do you impregnate a woman? (Assuming Christianity is the flavor of choice here).

Anyway, irregardless of that, I'm not here so much as to debate with you, though I would love to, but it's simply I do not have the time to really properly debate and thus would be unfair to anyone I debate with. I'm here simply to give constructive advice as to how to better apprehend and shape your arguments. So, give some thought to this and potentially realize that your approach may be more flawed than you think it is.

 

[Dre89]

Yes, very possible that any theoretical other universes wouldn't have spacetime. How does that tie into your beliefs that the universe is immaterial?

I don't necessary believe in a multiverse, but I don't necessarily rule that out either, it's not really of great concern to me. To be honest, I only seek for knowledge and truth of the world not for the pleasure of omniscience, but to be able to get as close to omnibenevolence as I can. The existence of alternate universes has no bearing on that quest.

The reason why I believe that the universe is immaterial is because of what I mentioned before. I have reason to believe there is existence 'beyond' the universe (in fact I believe the universe could only have been created from an existence beyond it, but that's a long story), therefore the universe must be immaterial because time and space would only exist within the universe.

 

[RDK]

RDK said talking about time before BB is meaningless. It doesn't suprise me because evolutionists admit they don't have an adequate explanation of these kind of issues..

What in the world?

What does evolution have to do with what happened before the big bang?

Have you ever taken a science class? Ever?

 

[Dre89]

My earlier point still stands. You still have bring no evidence or basis to start with any of the presuppositions that a god must be eternal, or self-necessary. How do you even deduce what traits a god might have? The question I'm trying to ask is how do you know what you know?

I'm saying that the original being must have those traits. As a result, that being would fit the definition of God.

Not to mention that your account of a god clearly is in contradiction with his supposed behavior and actions that was ostensibly performed by him, which clearly needed a physical form, Thus, he was something subject to the laws of physics, and thus changeable. Otherwise, how else do you impregnate a woman? (Assuming Christianity is the flavor of choice here).

I don't believe in religion, so this statement is largely irrelevant. I feel that revealed theology is flawed.

Anyway, irregardless of that, I'm not here so much as to debate with you, though I would love to, but it's simply I do not have the time to really properly debate and thus would be unfair to anyone I debate with. I'm here simply to give constructive advice as to how to better apprehend and shape your arguments. So, give some thought to this and potentially realize that your approach may be more flawed than you think it is.

I obviously accept the possibility that my conclusions are wrong, but generally the individual premises I put forward are accepted in the philosophical community, not that they are universally agreed upon, but that they are well-founded enough to be worth debaing.

 

[Dre89]

What in the world?

What does evolution have to do with what happened before the big bang?

Have you ever taken a science class? Ever?

Normally when I say evolutionist, I generalise into both BB and evolution, becuase all the people I seem to talk to seem to believe both, because both are allegedly irrefutable scientific fact.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Sucumbio]

Admittedly, I skipped much of this thread, but how did an argument about evolution turn into one about multiple universes?

It's my fault, really.

Also your BB theory is not bad, more detailed than most give credit for... the "for some unknown reason" is exactly where Dre drew upon for his argument. The unknown reason can't be unknown, it has to be a Divine Intervention, because the singularity and all the natural elements within and to follow, cannot have created themselves. This got argued (as you can see in his thread) to death and back, but it was a good nonetheless.

Dre wanted to clarify what I'd paraphrased and 5 pages later I'm my own grandpa.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I'd just like to clear a few things up.

How could there not be time before BB? Before supposes time. The very fact that time comes into existence at some point suggests that there was already an event-by-event sequence (which is essentially time) in existence.

Time was probably created in the big bang, so there was no "before" that, because the expression "before" breaks down in the absence of time. Sure time comes into existence, just like space, but both wasn't there "before" their creation. An event-by-event sequence requires time, so there would be none of those. Sorry, if it's hard to grasp, but this is where all the current theories are pointing at the moment.

There are certain traits God must have. He must be self-necessary, must be able to exist independant of any other entity, and must be eternal (which subsequently does not allow for change). If He is not those, He cannot be the original being, or non-being.

The reason why God must be eternal is that to be self-necessary, you can not have had a beginning, for all that begins is caused by a prior actuallity, and therefore is not self-necessary.

To be eternal, you cannot have change. As soon as you have change, you have a created a reference point, which means God exists in an event-by-event sequence (finite time), meaning that He cannot be self-necessary, for He would be dependant on time.

This is why I feel only God could be the original being. Because of the change, and event-by-event sequence evident in the world, we know that time is finite. Therefore, it could not be a natural entity, for all natural entities are finite.

I think you may have just defeated yourself. An eternal god can't change as you have stated. However, doing anything at all i.e. creating a universe, would change him and put him in the even-by-event sequence and place him firmly in finite time. So, god, by an extension of your argument, is powerless.

Also, another point to this effect is that, if god existed before everything else, for an infinite amount of time, what prompted him to set in motion the events that created the universe we see today?

It cannot be himself, because he's infinitely old and he has no reference point, he can't start or finish anything by himself, because it would have already happened. He can't wait for a certain time - when would he start counting?-, he can't finish thinking about it - it would have already been done and when would he have started?. He can't have been affected by anything else, for he was the original cause. If he can't start or finish anything, he's powerless.

Therefore an infinite god, is powerless and a powerless god can't create a universe.

I hope it made sense...

 

[Mewter]

You're a little late.

Edit: I'll argue the evolution part of this thread with you though.

Edit edit: Maybe not. I'm a little tired.

Edit^3: You know what, ignore this post.