God, Burritos, and Perfection

[rvkevin]

Basically the same logic I applied to the first. It jumps the gun and immediately makes the assumption that because there "must" be a first cause it has to be God.

This basically sums it up. Even if you establish that there is something eternal, that something must have always existed, it seems a little dishonest to ascribe the label God to such an entity. If that entity turns out to be space, matter, or energy, does that mean that everyone is a theist? To say that this establishes what everyone calls God, needless to say, misses the mark. If that is so, then there is no use praying to such a deity, and calling an entity that does not have the power to answer prayers God would not be describing what most people call God.

 

[Sucumbio]

This is also true, unfortunately. Aquinas did not do well to explain the why in his proof, only that logically speaking one thing leads to another, and it's not exactly wrong. But there's a FAR leap from what he ascribes as God and what Christians call God, Muslims, Ancient Greeks, etc. etc. The personality of God is something that religion tries to predict and/or endorse, and it's foolishness for the most part.

 

[ballin4life]

Aquinas is not really trying to be complex in this. To use the ball analogy, the ball can be moved, or it can be at rest, ergo: Potential Energy or Kinetic Energy. Now it's true that you could say the ball isn't moving at all and it's the world that is, but that's not accurate... if everything is stationary except the ball once it's left your hand, then it's the ball that's moving.

No. This statement is entirely false. It is equally correct to say that the ball is moving or that the rest of the world is moving.

Think about this example as well: I am sitting down right now. I am not moving relative to the other objects in this room, but I am moving at an incredibly fast speed relative to the Sun (since the entire Earth revolves around the Sun). So which is it? The answer is it depends, because there is NO absolute frame of reference.

We can actually correlate Aquinas' idea of potentiality to Newton's Law:

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

It has been assumed that the same is true for objects at rest (in that they tend to stay at rest unless acted on by an external force).

Why Newton's first law is true, is the same as why Aquinas' first Proof is true. Objects have a potentiality to move, they simply require something to make them move. Nothing just moves by itself.

You haven't shown this to be true at all. I just snapped my fingers, by myself. Newton's first law is not the gospel truth; it's just something that we have observed to be generally true for non living objects (that's not even taking into account cases where it isn't true, which can easily occur in quantum mechanics for example).

Perhaps...

gravity: the force of attraction by which terrestrial bodies tend to fall toward the center of the earth.

I get why you'd point this out, and I'll further this distinction by referring to general relativity.

I don't see any mentions of magnetism in the following paragraph. I'm just pointing out there that the force of electromagnetism is NOT the same as the force of gravity.

It's also amusing that you would quote general relativity in support of your argument, because the entire basis of relativity is the point that I brought up above - there is no absolute frame of reference.

As is evidenced by general relativity, the ball simply existing means it's compelled to move through space. Aquinas wasn't even trying to get that in depth though. Using his proof, we'd simply say that the act of throwing it up in the first place, is why it also comes down. The single instant in which it is not "moving" (it is still in motion, it's just perceived by any third persons as standing still) is explained in that potential motion changed from upwards potential to downward potential.

Well, you see, you still haven't defined motion.

Not to mention by Newton's law the ball should continue forever, except that there is some force of gravity acting on it (and gravity is NOT an "actual motion").

Synapses function in your analogy as to the pool table, neurons as the balls, or cue.... The brain is a complex organ, of course, but where a thought actually originates is still debatable. A single thought would need a brain to come to fruition, yes but it's no single element of the brain. The cause of a thought is the culmination of multiple parts of a single organ. When you strike a billiard ball with your cue, and they are both on a table, and one is aimed at the other, they collide. When you fire a neuron along your brain's synapse, a thought occurs. Notice in both the operative "you" is doing something. This is cause.

I don't accept either determinism (that all outcomes are determined) or mechanism (that the human mind is equivalent to a machine).

And what I am asking it what causes ME, the consciousness associated with this particular body, to do these things? If you accept determinism, then you believe that all of my conscious actions are the results of previous stimuli from the world. But I don't accept determinism at all, because I believe in free will.

This is implied. Evolution led to the actual brain, but evolution itself is the observation of causes to effects, going back to the first cause.

I don't see what this has to do with your previous statement that "the first cause caused us all to have brains, which cause us to think". I'm saying that you didn't bring up any additional evidence here.

Well sure, you can attribute motion to the universe as well, but you're still identifying a cause and effect. Aquinas' point was that all effects have prior causes, going back ad infinitum to the first cause, which is God.

Please define cause.

Absolutely true, there's nothing that proves that God is anything other than the first cause. In fact most evidence would suggest otherwise, that God aka The First Cause is an irresponsible jerk, lol.

Please show that the first cause even has the qualities (like a mind, a will, power to influence the world, etc) that would enable it to be a "jerk".

Well this stems from Proof 4, which although a more lofty extension of 1-3; it's the same principle. Things are moving so there had to be something to make the first thing move. Things happen so there had to be something to make the first happening happen. Things exist but not forever, so something had to exist first in order for things to exist now. Things are great, and their greatness extends from higher greatnesses, so something had to be the greatest of all things.

Responding to what I actually said about "Proof" 4 would be great (haha get it? )

Here's a summary: Define great, explain why greatness comes from higher greatness, and show that something has to be the "greatest" (note that some things, like the natural numbers, have no greatest element).

This part is lofty because it's referring to consciousness. Our consciousness had to have come from a greater consciousness, in other words.

Why? I don't see how this is the case at all.

Is it necessarily alive? Well there's no telling. We being "lower" creatures, perhaps our being alive is actually a lesser state. The greatest greatness could very well be a computer! But I doubt it. The preceding proofs tend to suggest that it's nothing mechanical or even biological, and this is where God's other attributes stem from (the omni's).

I don't even know what greatness means. Greatness is inherently subjective. For example, I think that Barry Bonds is the greatest baseball player, but some people would disagree because they have a different idea of what constitutes greatness (seriously though, Bonds is the greatest baseball player).

 

[Theftz22]

There's no difference between people having the ability to choose evil, and always choosing good because God intends it, and just always choosing good because God intends it.

Again I'd say that depends on what notion of free will you are adopting. Under the first notion of free will neither of those counts as having free will because a person will 100% of the choose the good.

Under the second notion I'd say only the first counts as free will because the option to choose the evil must always exist in order for free will to exist, even though the good will always be chosen.

You contradict yourself with the singularity. You criticise thiesm for going prior to time and space, but then when I say time and space being self-necessary renders the singularity pointless, you say it caused time and space, meaning it is prior to time.

I perhaps misstated what I meant to say about the singularity, sorry about that. I didn't mean to say that the singularity caused space and time to exist, but rather that it represents the literal coming into being of space and time, that is what the singularity is. So the singularity does not cause space and time to begin to exist, it is the point in which space and time begin to exist, that is the label we have put on it.

The multiverse theory is just a stall. I know it only accommodates fine tuning, which is why it's pointless. Positing a MV commits one to athiesm, because a thiest wouldn't need a MV to explain fine tuning. So positing a MV is just an athiest without a sufficient explanation stalling, because a MV is just trying to explain FT until you find an explanation of the universe, despite the fact an MV is an equally metaphysical assertion as thiesm. The difference is thiests have a reason to assert FT, for they have an explanation of the universe.

The fact that a theory only explains one phenomenon does not make it "pointless". Explanatory scope is only one criterion used to assess the strength of a hypothesis, and that's only the strength of it, far from making it "pointless". The multiverse has great explanatory power, for instance, in regards to the fine-tuning of the universe. Again, I'd refer back to the example of evolution. The fact that it only explains biological diversity and the existence of complex life does not mean that you could discredit it for, say, not explaining abiogenesis. The fact that it does not explain abiogenesis does not weaken it's explanation of biological diversity and complex life, just as the fact that the multiverse does not explain the origin of itself does not weaken its explanation of fine tuning.

Positing the multiverse does not necessarily commit one to atheism. Sure, the theist would not need the multiverse to explain fine tuning, but that doesn't mean that you couldn't be a theist and postulate the multiverse. For instance, most theists today recognize the legitimacy of evolution, even though if god exists evolution really isn't a "necessary" process, for god could simply have designed intelligent life. Nevertheless, they maintain that god still exists, he just used the process of evolution to create diverse life. Similarly a theist could recognize the multiverse while maintaining that god exists and created the multiverse.

So I don't think positing the multiverse commits one to atheism and I don't think it's an atheistic "stall", it just explains one of many phenomena, like other scientific theories.


Also, a tip to atheists. If a theist tries to define god as a maximally perfect being, and especially if they try to use that definition to constitute an argument for his existence (like I'm seeing in the ontological argument and this bloated "greatest being" argument by Aquinas), adamantly insist that being a burrito is a perfection. Not only will the theist not be able to prove that god isn't a burrito by his definition, but it will also make the debate approximately one billion times more entertaining.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how the burrito argument works at all. If thiests were claiming that a finite, dependant, arbitrary being was maximally perfect, then yeah you'd have a point. The analogy doesn't work at all.

I'm not saying the MV needs to explain everything. The difference between evo theory and MV is that evo theory came about because there was positive evidence for it. There is no evidence for MV, it's posited because athiests find it to be a necessary truth to retain athiesm. If God revealed Himself unarguably to everyone, no one would bother with MV.

Your clarification of the singularity point doesn't change anything. If time came into being, then there was a period where time didn't exist, so you still have the same problem as I do. And I'm confused as to how space expands, when space is that which allows for expansion. It sounds like space expanding into pre-existing space.

 

[ballin4life]

OMG please stop talking about the Multiverse like all atheists/agnostics believe in it. I have said numerous times that it is a terrible argument when it comes to God debates.

Also there is some evidence for it since a multiverse is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics.

And the point is that perfectness is subjective. Underdogs's idea of a perfect being is a burrito.

 

[rvkevin]

And I'm confused as to how space expands, when space is that which allows for expansion. It sounds like space expanding into pre-existing space.

Two objects are 5 light years away from each other. One travels five light years in one direction, the other travels five light years in the opposite. They are now 17 light years away from each other. That is what it means for space to expand.

There is no evidence for MV, it's posited because atheists find it to be a necessary truth to retain atheism. If God revealed Himself unarguably to everyone, no one would bother with MV.

It is used as an objection to a deductive argument. To refute a deductive argument, all you need is the possibility of the objection to be true. Since multi-verses, M-theory, and the like are consistent with observations, they are possibly true, which makes them defeaters for the Fine Tuning Argument. Also, invoking it to refute the argument is not the same as believing it to be true or likely to be true.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death- I never said MV was universal amongst athiests.

Two objects are 5 light years away from each other. One travels five light years in one direction, the other travels five light years in the opposite. They are now 17 light years away from each other. That is what it means for space to expand.

No, that's the distance between two objects expanding, which pressumes the existence of space, and even time.

Space is the amount of area objects have to move around in. That space itself can't expand, because that would mean space itself would have area to expand into, meaning there was already pre-existing space there.

Also, your definition is absurd when you put into the context of BB theory, which posits that space and time expanded out from the singularity. If space was merely the distance between two objects, then all you're saying is that pre-existing objects (whose origin you then need to explain, yet they apparently existed prior to space and time, which is illogical) moved outwards, and the boundary of space is simply where the most distant objects from the original singularity are located. This would also mean that the objects would not have a fixed size, for prior to the BB these objects were encompassed in the singularity, which has no space or time.

It is used as an objection to a deductive argument. To refute a deductive argument, all you need is the possibility of the objection to be true. Since multi-verses, M-theory, and the like are consistent with observations, they are possibly true, which makes them defeaters for the Fine Tuning Argument. Also, invoking it to refute the argument is not the same as believing it to be true or likely to be true.

That doesn't work because the FT argument doesn't need to be deductive. It doesn't have to be the only possibility, it just has to be the most probable by a long way, which it is. If you're going to say theism can only claim that which we can know with absolute certainty, then athiesm loses several of its arguments as well, such as the arguments from evil and non-belief, and would not be able to say that the singularity was the first cause instead of the FSM, because athiesm can only say that the FSM is astronomically improbable, therefore unecessary to assert. It can't say it can't exist, therefore the FSM is fair game by the standard you've set here.

 

[rvkevin]

I suggest that you should look back at what I wrote. If I have two objects that are 5 feet apart, and each one moves five feet away from each other, how far apart are they now? I don't expect those in the field of philosophy to be proficient in high level math, but I don't think I set the bar too high on this one. When you find that the answer that normally follows does not line up with the one I gave, then you will reach the implied answer, that the space in between the objects has expanded, which makes the objects farther away from each other than had the space remained constant.

That doesn't work because the FT argument doesn't need to be deductive. It doesn't have to be the only possibility, it just has to be the most probable by a long way, which it is. If you're going to say theism can only claim that which we can know with absolute certainty, then atheism loses several of its arguments as well, such as the arguments from evil and non-belief, and would not be able to say that the singularity was the first cause instead of the FSM, because atheism can only say that the FSM is astronomically improbable, therefore unnecessary to assert. It can't say it can't exist, therefore the FSM is fair game by the standard you've set here.

I never said that theism can only make claims with absolute certainty. I said that if you are going to use deductive logic, then it only works if the premises are true. If you have any uncertainty with the premises, that effects how confident you can be with the conclusion and then you have to use probability theory. Once you do that, you are working with Bayes theorem, which brings all dis-confirming evidence into the mix and that reduces the force of the argument.

I have never seen the Fine Tuning Argument defended with Bayes theorem* and I have only seen it been proposed in the form of a deductive argument, which leads me to believe that the proponents are using deductive logic (and some, such as William Lane Craig, admit to be using deductive logic), which only applies if the probability of the premises are one, which is absolute certainty. If you think that fine-tuning is evidence that makes the existence of a God to be very likely, then I recommend that you formulate it in Bayesian terms, with corresponding reasoning for each individual value.

*Actually, I have seen the Fine Tuning Argument in the form of Bayes theorem, however, it was the Fine Tuning Argument for the non-existence of God.

Lets look at an example of deductive logic encroaching on the terrain of probability theory:
1. Jonny tested positive for a disease
2. The test is accurate
C. Jonny has the disease
This is a deductive argument; the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If you were certain of the premises, then you would be justified in believing the conclusion. However, what if I told you that the test is not 100% accurate, but is only 99.99% accurate, would you still think the conclusion is justified since the premise “just has to be the most probable by a long way”? How likely is it that Jonny has the disease (if not numerical, then a general high or low would be fine)? Do you think that knowing the prevalence of the disease would affect the conclusion or would it be useless information? What implications does this have on the original argument (should we reject the second premise or not, should we say that the conclusion no longer follows from the premises or not, etc.)? I’ll let you figure out the answers to these questions so you can learn how the smallest amount of uncertainty (only a hundredth of a percent) effects the conclusion of a deductive argument.

 

[ballin4life]

That doesn't work because the FT argument doesn't need to be deductive. It doesn't have to be the only possibility, it just has to be the most probable by a long way, which it is.

Not by any mathematical definition of probability. As I've said many times before, when you can't define a probability space, you can't use probability.

If you're going to say theism can only claim that which we can know with absolute certainty, then athiesm loses several of its arguments as well, such as the arguments from evil and non-belief, and would not be able to say that the singularity was the first cause instead of the FSM, because athiesm can only say that the FSM is astronomically improbable, therefore unecessary to assert. It can't say it can't exist, therefore the FSM is fair game by the standard you've set here.

The arguments from evil and nonbelief only serve to show that God isn't good. Since the presumption that God is good is completely unnecessary, these arguments don't really serve to show anything.

I suggest that you should look back at what I wrote. If I have two objects that are 5 feet apart, and each one moves five feet away from each other, how far apart are they now? I don't expect those in the field of philosophy to be proficient in high level math, but I don't think I set the bar too high on this one. When you find that the answer that normally follows does not line up with the one I gave, then you will reach the implied answer, that the space in between the objects has expanded, which makes the objects farther away from each other than had the space remained constant.

LOL I totally missed that on first read through. Oh well, it's late and I'm tired.

I have never seen the Fine Tuning Argument defended with Bayes theorem* and I have only seen it been proposed in the form of a deductive argument, which leads me to believe that the proponents are using deductive logic (and some, such as William Lane Craig, admit to be using deductive logic), which only applies if the probability of the premises are one, which is absolute certainty.

Technically, if the probability of something is one then it is "almost sure" not absolutely certain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

 

[rvkevin]

Technically, if the probability of something is one then it is "almost sure" not absolutely certain. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely

Let me clarify, in terms of Bayes theorem, if someone thinks the probability of the premises has a probability of one, this means that there is no evidence that could change their mind. I think this qualifies someone as being absolutely certain. "Sure" and "almost sure" refer to certain types of solutions, which is not what I am referring to in this context.

 

[ballin4life]

Yeah. Good post by the way, even though I don't think you can apply effectively apply probability to the situation at all.

 

[Dre89]

Rvkevin your space theory makes no sense. It already assumes there is area to move around in, and the expansion of space is merely the expansion of the distance of the two most distant objects in the universe. That doesn't explain where the area to move around in came from. Also, it groundlessly assumes that this area is infinite.

What exactly would it mean then to say that the singularity was a point that encapsulated space and time? All this would mean is that before the expansion, the most distant objects were as close as possible (which still necessitates the prior existence of space anyway), yet I don't see how these objects could be encapsulated in this point, prior to the existence of space and time.

I also don't see what you're trying to achieve with your FT point. The FT of the universe would suggest that an initelligent designer is far more probable than it coming about by mere chance. Even if you reject this, you couldn't reject it on the grounds that God could not existence, but rather that His existence would be less probable than the first cause being naturalistic. You yourself there would be using probability too, so I don't see what the issue is.

In fact, any athiest theory of the first cause is based on probability. Because athiests place looser demands on the first cause (it can be an assortment of multiple complex principles in an athiestic framework) you can't rule out the FSM, you just don't assert its existence based on its astronomical improbability.

 

[Theftz22]

I don't see how the burrito argument works at all. If thiests were claiming that a finite, dependant, arbitrary being was maximally perfect, then yeah you'd have a point. The analogy doesn't work at all.

As Ballin says, the point is that perfection is subjective. You could define god as the maximally perfect being, but what that definition entails is up for unsolvable dispute. If I think that being a burrito is a perfection, you can't prove that I'm wrong.

I'm not saying the MV needs to explain everything. The difference between evo theory and MV is that evo theory came about because there was positive evidence for it. There is no evidence for MV, it's posited because athiests find it to be a necessary truth to retain athiesm. If God revealed Himself unarguably to everyone, no one would bother with MV.

Multiverse proponents claim the evidence for it arises from two things. One is the fine-tuning itself. The other is quantum indeterminate events. The theory is that every time a quantum indeterminate event happens, all outcomes actually occur, just in different universes.

All I use the multiverse for is a possibility to explain fine tuning, so I don't really need evidence for it, just the possibility of it.

Your clarification of the singularity point doesn't change anything. If time came into being, then there was a period where time didn't exist, so you still have the same problem as I do. And I'm confused as to how space expands, when space is that which allows for expansion. It sounds like space expanding into pre-existing space.

Time came into being, but the point in which time came into being is the first instance of time. So there is no "before" when time came into being. Thus there is no point in which time does not exist.

I don't know how space expands, you'll have to ask someone more versed in the technical details of big bang cosmology.

 

[rvkevin]

Rvkevin your space theory makes no sense. It already assumes there is area to move around in, and the expansion of space is merely the expansion of the distance of the two most distant objects in the universe.

This is not what I am saying at all. I’m not saying that space is indicated by the relative position of objects. The illustration merely shows that space is not some fixed object. It can expand, contort, and even exert a force on objects.

I also don't see what you're trying to achieve with your FT point.

Basically, you make a lot of assertions without showing any work. In order to see if the conclusion is correct or incorrect, I need to see the process of how you come to the conclusion. My point is that you haven’t shown (or maybe haven’t done) the necessary work to make the claims that you do. I further speculated that you don’t even have the understanding required to even do the analysis required and tried to probe your understanding with questions about a hypothetical case. I’m very curious as to how you would answer those questions.

 

[Theftz22]

As Ballin says, the point is that perfection is subjective. You could define god as the maximally perfect being, but what that definition entails is up for unsolvable dispute. If I think that being a burrito is a perfection, you can't prove that I'm wrong.

In fact, I think I'm gonna make myself some god right now.

Who knew deicide is so maximally delicious??

 

[ballin4life]

I also don't see what you're trying to achieve with your FT point. The FT of the universe would suggest that an initelligent designer is far more probable than it coming about by mere chance. Even if you reject this, you couldn't reject it on the grounds that God could not existence, but rather that His existence would be less probable than the first cause being naturalistic. You yourself there would be using probability too, so I don't see what the issue is.

In fact, any athiest theory of the first cause is based on probability. Because athiests place looser demands on the first cause (it can be an assortment of multiple complex principles in an athiestic framework) you can't rule out the FSM, you just don't assert its existence based on its astronomical improbability.

What is the probability that God would want to make this particular universe?

I don't think there is an answer to the above question, but for whatever answer you give please explain why you wouldn't be able to give the same answer and reasoning for the question "What is the probability that this particular universe exists?"

Introducing God doesn't answer any of these questions. It's just another way of saying "That's the way it is". But we can just say "That's the way it is" without invoking God.

Once again though, it doesn't even make sense to talk about probability with this subject, since there is no defined probability space.

 

[Mewter]

This is not what I am saying at all. I’m not saying that space is indicated by the relative position of objects. The illustration merely shows that space is not some fixed object. It can expand, contort, and even exert a force on objects.

Hey rvkevin, how do you know this about space? It sounds like a pretty hefty claim for you to make to say that space itself influences objects.

To take it further, space is simply the distance from point A to point B.
How can a measurement be an object like space?
Please explain.

 

[rvkevin]

Hey rvkevin, how do you know this about space? It sounds like a pretty hefty claim for you to make to say that space itself influences objects.

It's called gravity, based on general relativity. (5:56-7:20)

 

[Mewter]

Two objects are 5 light years away from each other. One travels five light years in one direction, the other travels five light years in the opposite. They are now 17 light years away from each other. That is what it means for space to expand.

So space in every direction is expanding, which means objects are moving apart in every direction?

If they are moving apart, what are they moving apart into? An infinite area of space?

Does this make the universe a sphere flying outward from an explosion that appeared out of nowhere (which is what the Big Bang hypothesis states?)

 

[rvkevin]

So space in every direction is expanding, which means objects are moving apart in every direction?

Yes, this is what was observed by Hubble.

If they are moving apart, what are they moving apart into? An infinite area of space?

We don't know if space is infinite because of the background radiation. Light cannot go through the radiation so it acts like a wall where we cannot see through the other side. This would be the end of the observable universe, but we can only speculate as to the size of the actual universe. It may be infinite, it may not be.

Does this make the universe a sphere flying outward from an explosion that appeared out of nowhere (which is what the Big Bang hypothesis states?)

The Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about T=0. It only models the inflationary period that occurred afterward (Notice that it doesn't cover quantum fluctuations). To get back at T=0, we would probably have to use some sort of quantum theory and then you get into unknown territory where we just don't know.

 

[Dre89]

T=0 would probably be metaphysics. Science requires observation, and you can't observe what is prior to time.

 

[Reaver197]

Depends on what time is, and when you set it as starting.

 

[ballin4life]

The Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of time either.

edit: whoops missed Reaver's post saying the exact same thing.

 

[RDK]

The Big Bang isn't necessarily the beginning of time either.

edit: whoops missed Reaver's post saying the exact same thing.

The concept of time is meaningless before the Big Bang.

 

[ballin4life]

The concept of time is meaningless before the Big Bang.

Why?

I mean, it could be that way, or it could be viewed another way. I think it's unknowable.

Or just see Reaver's post

 

[rvkevin]

T=0 would probably be metaphysics. Science requires observation, and you can't observe what is prior to time.

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."-Richard Feynman

 

[RDK]

Why?

I mean, it could be that way, or it could be viewed another way. I think it's unknowable.

Or just see Reaver's post

Because neither time nor space existed before the Big Bang. This is a pretty fundamental concept to understanding anything about physics or cosmology.

Time is a measurement of change. If the Big Bang is the starting point of the universe then it would be silly to think time existed before it because there is nothing to be timed.

 

[ballin4life]

Because neither time nor space existed before the Big Bang. This is a pretty fundamental concept to understanding anything about physics or cosmology.

Time is a measurement of change. If the Big Bang is the starting point of the universe then it would be silly to think time existed before it because there is nothing to be timed.

It depends on your definitions. If we define "universe" as "all things that exist" then the universe existed before the Big Bang.

According to this sort of theory:

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

it would make some sense to go "before" the Big Bang.

I only claim that it's unknowable.

 

[Reaver197]

Technically untrue. The Big Bang theory isn't about how the universe started, but simply how the universe's shape and size changed from the earliest moments we can accurately go back to. The big bang theory should really be seen as part of inflationary theory, which simply seeks to explain how the universe grew from the subatomic size it was, and then inflate into the size it is now.

The issue is, that, whatever the state, nature, and however long the universe was in this subatomic scale, is completely unknown to us at the moment, unfortunately.

 

[Dre89]

"Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."-Richard Feynman

So then tell me how science would observe something prior to space and time.

And athiests saying what happened prior to the BB is pointless is the same as a thiest saying that the free will- omniscience dilemma is pointless. It gets cast aside because they struggle with it.

 

[Mewter]

And athiests saying what happened prior to the BB is pointless is the same as a thiest saying that the free will- omniscience dilemma is pointless. It gets cast aside because they struggle with it.

Hey Dre., how goes it?

It's not the same. In this case, the situation comes from the first thing stated in RDK's post:


- *Big Bang coincides with the start of space and time (t=0 is the start.)
- Time is measurement of change.
- The domain of time is only 0-> Positive Numbers
- T= "A negative number" does not exist since that point is undefined.


So sure, if time did come about at the big bang, you could still make a number line, but all the negative time would be is a mathematical construct. That's the point he is trying to make.

What you do need to argue with him is whether or not time (t=0) took place at the big bang.

So then tell me how science would observe something prior to space and time.

Who said that?

 

[rvkevin]

So then tell me how science would observe something prior to space and time.

Even if it couldn't, that would not necessarily make it outside the purview of science. All you need to do science is to make predictions and test those predictions. This is why evolution is a scientific branch even though it deals with historical facts. Science doesn't need to observe a point in history in order to test predictions from it. Either you are using language extremely loosely, or you are acting in a way that the quote is deriding, making very ignorant statements about what is absolutely necessary for science.

 

[Dre89]

But how would you test the prediction? I don't see how any theory that concerns T 0 could ever be verifiable.

Mewter- T 0 still requires an explanation, you can't just leave it.

 

[rvkevin]

But how would you test the prediction? I don't see how any theory that concerns T 0 could ever be verifiable.

I don't really understand what the problem is. If there is a prediction, for example, that if the conditions prior to the beginning of the universe are so and so, then the makeup of the universe is so and so. We then test that prediction by seeing if the makeup of the universe is so and so. Saying there could never be a prediction concerning this because you can't think of how to do it would be to commit the fallacy of personal incredulity.

 

[Mewter]

Mewter- T 0 still requires an explanation, you can't just leave it.

What do you mean by explanation?

The reason for time even existing?

 

[Dre89]

You can't just say time came into existence, and think that's good enough for athiesm, because that has metaphysical issues which need to be addressed.

Rv- If you're talking about prior to space and time that's metaphysics. Saying there needs to be, or doesn't need to be something prior is a MP claim.

 

[Mewter]

In what manner are physical objects always dependent on something else?

 

[RDK]

So then tell me how science would observe something prior to space and time.

And athiests saying what happened prior to the BB is pointless is the same as a thiest saying that the free will- omniscience dilemma is pointless. It gets cast aside because they struggle with it.

You can't just say time came into existence, and think that's good enough for athiesm, because that has metaphysical issues which need to be addressed.

Rv- If you're talking about prior to space and time that's metaphysics. Saying there needs to be, or doesn't need to be something prior is a MP claim.

It's fairly obvious from these posts that you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[ballin4life]

So then tell me how science would observe something prior to space and time.

And athiests saying what happened prior to the BB is pointless is the same as a thiest saying that the free will- omniscience dilemma is pointless. It gets cast aside because they struggle with it.

I don't understand why this matters. Even if you can't know for sure what happened with the Big Bang or before the Big Bang or whatever, what is the problem?