The Debate Hall Social Thread

[RDK]

FK, try reading Selfish Gene before God Delusion. Getting acquainted with the science of what our existence as humans on this earth actually means for us helped me switch sides faster than arguing philosophy.

It's an eye opener.

Here are some useful sites:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.infidels.org/
http://pandasthumb.org/

 

[RDK]

Faithkeeper Dawkins is rubbish, his books are just money making ventures, which is so why so many philosophers hate him. I have athiests in my classes tell me he's rubbish anh there's much better atheist work out there. Seriously the guy doesn't even understand the cosmological argument.

The cosmological argument is a joke, as is most philosophy that tries to explain god.

Why does the universe need a causal explanation, but somehow god doesn't?

 

[blazedaces]

@Blazed: If you don't mind me asking, are you a physicist? :O

I'm graduating in electrical engineering next year... but I've also tutored math and physics before...

The cosmological argument is a joke, as is most philosophy that tries to explain god.

Why does the universe need a causal explanation, but somehow god doesn't?

RDK I just want to point something out to you that I learned this year about Thomas Aquinas:

Before he wrote his five proofs for God (he was not the first person in history to write most of them) he said none of them were without fault. He knew this. God is a belief, it can never be truly known. You can neither prove nor disprove him. It is simply a matter of faith, as it has always been...

-blazed

 

[RDK]

Before he wrote his five proofs for God (he was not the first person in history to write most of them) he said none of them were without fault. He knew this. God is a belief, it can never be truly known. You can neither prove nor disprove him. It is simply a matter of faith, as it has always been...

-blazed

I'm familiar with Aquinas, which is why I consider philosophy to be useless except for allowing people to think they can throw around weight in discussions about science.

Philosophy serves no other purpose. Theists don't like to engage the facts of our existence so instead they argue about first principles, and axioms, and omniscience and other fancy philosophical terms because it makes them sound smart without actually saying anything.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I'd like to propose that Faithkeeper stage a c'oup on Vatican City and become the new Pope.

lol. Well, I don't exactly agree with everything Catholicism supports, that could be a bit problematic. I just figure if you won't let your spiritual beliefs change you, they are somewhat irrelevant to begin with. And if I'm going to sit here and make my personal beliefs a cornerstone for my lifestyle and outlook on life, I had better be pretty sure I'm right. And it's just smart to constantly check the integrity of your foundation. Kind of like the whole "humility" aspect of science, constantly going back and checking the theories against new evidence. I mean, it might not change a thing, and a new facet of the original theory might develop. But I think I owe it to myself to at least check out that foundation every few months or so.

Faithkeeper Dawkins is rubbish, his books are just money making ventures, which is so why so many philosophers hate him. I have athiests in my classes tell me he's rubbish anh there's much better atheist work out there. Seriously the guy doesn't even understand the cosmological argument.

Well he's a much better writer than the last book I read. What I've read thus far is interesting as least. But if you think I should be reading something else, go ahead and suggest something. Doesn't have to be Atheist literature. It could be Islamic apologetics if you honestly think it would be a worthwhile read. Or Christian theology or just a good book you read last summer. I probably won't have this kind of opportunity to read again for a decade, so I need to make the most of it.

FK, try reading Selfish Gene before God Delusion. Getting acquainted with the science of what our existence as humans on this earth actually means for us helped me switch sides faster than arguing philosophy.

It's an eye opener.

Here are some useful sites:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.infidels.org/
http://pandasthumb.org/

lol. :D I'm not exactly looking to switch sides. If I were confronted with something that were to influence my world view in such a manner that would constitute "changing sides," well then action would take place. But I'm not expecting for that to happen. I've done research like this before, and usually within a couple weeks its ultimate effect is making me more confidant in my original faith. An interesting thing is the more I read the Bible the more liberal I become. I have a strange political/theological relationship. (by strange I mean uncommon, it makes perfect sense to me) But I'll take that into consideration and take a look at that stuff at some point in the near future.

That's a lot of response in a short period of time, I think to get the debate hall active all we need to do is talk about religion.

 

[blazedaces]

I'm familiar with Aquinas, which is why I consider philosophy to be useless except for allowing people to think they can throw around weight in discussions about science.

Philosophy serves no other purpose. Theists don't like to engage the facts of our existence so instead they argue about first principles, and axioms, and omniscience and other fancy philosophical terms because it makes them sound smart without actually saying anything.

Let me give you a scientific example of a philosophical debate:

The uncertainty principle. To elaborate a bit there is a principle in quantum physics which states we can never know both the position and velocity of any one particle (it's basically like saying we can't know where something is and where it's going to be next at the same time).

On one side of the debate there are people like Einstein who claim that the only reason we don't "know" is because we lack the technology to measure such things. On the other side of the debate there are those who claim that until we make the measurements, that is, until we "know" neither exists...

If you're unfamiliar with this debate I apologize, but if you are you can see this is a clear philosophical question. It's relativism versus realism all over again. A debate that has spanned for centuries past. Whether or not things are the way they are regardless of us "knowing" them...

Philosophy is intertwined with science. It is inescapable.

-blazed

 

[RDK]

lol. :D I'm not exactly looking to switch sides. If I were confronted with something that were to influence my world view in such a manner that would constitute "changing sides," well then action would take place. But I'm not expecting for that to happen. I've done research like this before, and usually within a couple weeks its ultimate effect is making me more confidant in my original faith. An interesting thing is the more I read the Bible the more liberal I become. I have a strange political/theological relationship. (by strange I mean uncommon, it makes perfect sense to me) But I'll take that into consideration and take a look at that stuff at some point in the near future.

That's a lot of response in a short period of time, I think to get the debate hall active all we need to do is talk about religion.

Can you go into detail about why reading opposing viewpoints strengthens your faith?

What about it does that? Specifically.

 

[RDK]

Let me give you a scientific example of a philosophical debate:

The uncertainty principle. To elaborate a bit there is a principle in quantum physics which states we can never know both the position and velocity of any one particle (it's basically like saying we can't know where something is and where it's going to be next at the same time).

On one side of the debate there are people like Einstein who claim that the only reason we don't "know" is because we lack the technology to measure such things. On the other side of the debate there are those who claim that until we make the measurements, that is, until we "know" neither exists...

If you're unfamiliar with this debate I apologize, but if you are you can see this is a clear philosophical question. It's relativism versus realism all over again. A debate that has spanned for centuries past. Whether or not things are the way they are regardless of us "knowing" them...

Philosophy is intertwined with science. It is inescapable.

-blazed

I take back what I said about philosophy serving no other purpose than to invade actual discussion with new-age BS. It was harsh.

However it can be (and is) abused. What makes philosophy frowned upon by so many people is biologists, mathematicians, and physicists do all the dirty work while theologians sit around drinking wine and talking about first cause.

In my opinion the philosophy should change to match what we've discovered via science, not the other way around (philosophy being pitted against science because somebody's viewpoint becomes invalid or absurd without a philosophical explanation).

 

[blazedaces]

I take back what I said about philosophy serving no other purpose than to invade actual discussion with new-age BS. It was harsh.

However it can be (and is) abused. What makes philosophy frowned upon by so many people is biologists, mathematicians, and physicists do all the dirty work while theologians sit around drinking wine and talking about first cause.

In my opinion the philosophy should change to match what we've discovered via science, not the other way around (philosophy being pitted against science because somebody's viewpoint becomes invalid or absurd without a philosophical explanation).

I completely agree then, it is far too often abused. It's usually used when someone is backed into an obvious corner of impossibility, so they diverge into philosophical, for lack of a better term, "mambo jumbo" to try to save face...

-blazed

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I completely agree then, it is far too often abused. It's usually used when someone is backed into an obvious corner of impossibility, so they diverge into philosophical, for lack of a better term, "mambo jumbo" to try to save face...

-blazed

Which is why I hate when people debate in this fashion.

Lack evidence? Debate with jibber jabber! Works every time.

There was a youtube video which mocked the whole process by using a bingo board as for possible responses (don't know the link unfortunately. )

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Faithkeeper Dawkins is rubbish, his books are just money making ventures, which is so why so many philosophers hate him. I have athiests in my classes tell me he's rubbish anh there's much better atheist work out there. Seriously the guy doesn't even understand the cosmological argument.

Well, Dawkins has a lot of scientific knowledge. And honestly, I've read them, and their quite interesting. It should be worth noting though, he's probably weakest on his philosophical points. That said, he's still pretty good.

Also, The Greatest Show on Earth is well worth reading. Far better than the God Delusion.

 

[adumbrodeus]

I'd like to propose that Faithkeeper stage a c'oup on Vatican City and become the new Pope.

Hey, I'm first in line!



[random info]When I was a kid, I wanted to be the pope[/random info]

 

[Dre89]

The cosmological argument is a joke, as is most philosophy that tries to explain god.

Why does the universe need a causal explanation, but somehow god doesn't?

Because the universe is finite, it has a beginning and an end.

God is eternal, He has no beginning or end.

The only being that could be eternal is the original being, for this is a requirement of being self-necessary (which the original being, and only the original being is).

Physicalism can't argue that its original being is eternal, because natural observation shows that no natural entity can be eternal. To be eternal is to contradict the essence of a natural being.

You simpy cannot have the original being not be beyond physical existence.

That's why I'm not atheist, because there's no evidence that the original being could have been phsyicalistic, as athiesm argues, therefore I find it impossible to be true.

And whoever said philosophy is just opinions, stop studying science, because science came from philosophy, which apparently just opinions completely devoid of an objetcive measure of logic.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Can you go into detail about why reading opposing viewpoints strengthens your faith?

What about it does that? Specifically.

It acts as a confirmation of my views. The main thing that would keep me from being a Christian would be if there were something wrong with Christianity and another view made more sense. By looking at some of the most appealing of the other views (appealing=potential to make more sense than my current beliefs), analyzing them, comparing them to what I believe now, and drawing a conclusion, I feel as though the viewpoint I've come out with is more sound. Like if you have a fast car, the more races your car wins, the greater faith you have that it is a very fast car, maybe even the fastest car. Reading opposing viewpoints is participating in a race. But I will win at all costs. If my car loses I'm buying that other car. In my scenario, while other cars may have led laps at some point, the car I drive now has never lost a race. It's also possible that I lose to another driver. I consider myself to be of above average intelligence and debate skill, (maybe not for this group, but the general populace of the people I might come into contact with. But that could very easily change next year...) it is possible for someone to beat me in a race with a slower car. A lot of people point to the fastest driver of their car and say "that is what our car is really made of." but that's not always the case. Anyway, so if I lose a race, I'll take measures to confirm that it was the content of the car, rather than the other individual's debating ability or even the way they presented it that one the race before I would buy another car.


I hope that made sense for you. It's an extended analogy I made up as I went along.

 

[Dre89]

It's just common sense really. Addressing opposing theories simply allows you to draw a more informed conclusion and justify your position.

 

[blazedaces]

Because the universe is finite, it has a beginning and an end.

God is eternal, He has no beginning or end.

The only being that could be eternal is the original being, for this is a requirement of being self-necessary (which the original being, and only the original being is).

Physicalism can't argue that its original being is eternal, because natural observation shows that no natural entity can be eternal. To be eternal is to contradict the essence of a natural being.

You simpy cannot have the original being not be beyond physical existence.

That's why I'm not atheist, because there's no evidence that the original being could have been phsyicalistic, as athiesm argues, therefore I find it impossible to be true.

And whoever said philosophy is just opinions, stop studying science, because science came from philosophy, which apparently just opinions completely devoid of an objetcive measure of logic.

Before I begin this discussion I want to point out that I do indeed believe in God.

With that being said, according to your above statements, why must there only be "one" original being? Why can't there be more than one eternal, original beings? Another words, why monotheism versus polytheism?

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

Because the universe is finite, it has a beginning and an end.

You should remember this citation, but once again:

ESA: Is the Universe finite or infinite?

Joseph Silk: We don't know. The expanding Universe theory says that the Universe could expand forever [that corresponds to a 'flat' Universe]. And that is probably the model of the Universe that we feel closest to now. But it could also be finite, because it could be that the Universe has a very large volume now, but finite, and that that volume will increase, so only in the infinite future will it actually be infinite.


ESA: It sounds like a game of words, is it?

Joseph Silk: No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.


ESA: ‘Flat' seems to have a different meaning to non-scientists. By 'flat' we understand to be like a table, which has width. Does the Universe have width?

Joseph Silk: Flat is just a two-dimensional analogy. What we mean is that the Universe is 'Euclidean', meaning that parallel lines always run parallel, and that the angles of a triangle add up to 180o. Now, the two-dimensional equivalent to that is a plane, an infinite sheet of paper. On the surface of that plane you can draw parallel lines that will never meet. A curved geometry would be a sphere. If you draw parallel lines on a sphere, these lines will meet at a certain point, and if you draw a triangle its angles add up more than 180o. So the surface of the sphere is not flat. It's a finite space but it's not flat, while the surface of a torus is a flat space.

We don't actually know that the universe is infinite, or finite.

God is eternal, He has no beginning or end.

The only being that could be eternal is the original being, for this is a requirement of being self-necessary (which the original being, and only the original being is).

Unless you believe the universe always existed.

 

[Reaver197]

Because the universe is finite, it has a beginning and an end.

God is eternal, He has no beginning or end.

The only being that could be eternal is the original being, for this is a requirement of being self-necessary (which the original being, and only the original being is).

Physicalism can't argue that its original being is eternal, because natural observation shows that no natural entity can be eternal. To be eternal is to contradict the essence of a natural being.

You simpy cannot have the original being not be beyond physical existence.

That's why I'm not atheist, because there's no evidence that the original being could have been phsyicalistic, as athiesm argues, therefore I find it impossible to be true.

And whoever said philosophy is just opinions, stop studying science, because science came from philosophy, which apparently just opinions completely devoid of an objetcive measure of logic.

Such bad reasoning.

Your whole argument is basically "ok, I'm going to start with something that I want to be true, and then give it the attributes it needs to be true". You never stop to postulate that maybe no being is needed to make a universe, or even if the universe is finite in any sense that it actually needs a "beginning" of sorts.

Plus, the argument does a poor job of selecting from the practically infinite hypotheses that could be posited based on the framework of "X entity needs Y attributes in order to have existed forever to make the universe".

Science and philosophy are fundamentally intertwined, since they are both fields trying to understand the nature of the world. However, philosophy has the weakness of having a poor system for determining whether a given stipulation is true or not, or even applicable to the universe we are in. The scientific method can work beautifully with philosophy though to help ascertain accurate observations and/or conclusions, or, as more seems to be the case, to understand the limits of obtaining and understanding knowledge.

 

[Dre89]

No Reaver there must be an original being, for you cannot have multiple original beings. The original being must be being itself, for the one hundreth time it is self necessary. When you have multiple beings they are dependant on each other, you haven't shown where being originally came from. Multiple beings can't be being itself, because there would be other beings that exist outside if it's being. So yes I did in fact have a reason for that premise.

Sucumbio you can't have reference points, or change in infinity. The universe may be infinitely expanding in that it constantly expands until its end, but you cannot have infinity in the sense of an infinitely long space of cause-and effect-matter.

And no I don't think the universe could have existed infinitely, in the sense that time as we know it would be infinite, for the above reason.

 

[Reaver197]

And how is that in anyway an explanation of how a deity exists? You just say "it must exist to fulfill the requirement of being itself" essentially. "Multiple beings can't be being itself"? Do you even know what you're saying?

Also, time itself might just be an illusion caused by the interactions of the different systems of the universe, and not actually at all any integral part of its nature. Plus, the idea of any direct "cause-and-effect" chain of events can lose all meaning in quantum dynamics. Take the idea of virtual particles. At any given moment, a particle and an antiparticle can appear briefly, only to come back together to annihilate each other.

However, the antiparticle can also be described in physics as a particle moving backwards in time. So, essentially, you can think of virtual particles as one particle going forward and backwards in time to create and annihilate itself. So much for "cause and effect".

 

[Dre89]

And how is that in anyway an explanation of how a deity exists? You just say "it must exist to fulfill the requirement of being itself" essentially. "Multiple beings can't be being itself"? Do you even know what you're saying?

Yes I do. Before beings can exist, something must be responsible for being. Having multiple beings means that being already existed before they did.

Being itself must be a unified entity, not multiple, because it must be responsible for all existence, so there couldn't be other beings whose existence it is not responsible for.

Also, time itself might just be an illusion caused by the interactions of the different systems of the universe, and not actually at all any integral part of its nature. Plus, the idea of any direct "cause-and-effect" chain of events can lose all meaning in quantum dynamics. Take the idea of virtual particles. At any given moment, a particle and an antiparticle can appear briefly, only to come back together to annihilate each other.


However, the antiparticle can also be described in physics as a particle moving backwards in time. So, essentially, you can think of virtual particles as one particle going forward and backwards in time to create and annihilate itself. So much for "cause and effect".

When I said cause and effect I just meant change. What you said is still change, it is still movement.

I do agree though that time and space are illusions though, for they only exist within the universe. The original being doesn't exist in space and time obviously.

 

[RDK]

No Reaver there must be an original being, for you cannot have multiple original beings. The original being must be being itself, for the one hundreth time it is self necessary. When you have multiple beings they are dependant on each other, you haven't shown where being originally came from. Multiple beings can't be being itself, because there would be other beings that exist outside if it's being. So yes I did in fact have a reason for that premise.

Sucumbio you can't have reference points, or change in infinity. The universe may be infinitely expanding in that it constantly expands until its end, but you cannot have infinity in the sense of an infinitely long space of cause-and effect-matter.

And no I don't think the universe could have existed infinitely, in the sense that time as we know it would be infinite, for the above reason.

I'm going to ask you again.

Why does the universe need a first cause, but your deity doesn't?

The assertion that an omnipotent being solves the problem of the origins of the universe is silly and childish. This debate dissovles into infinite regression.

Just think about it for half a second. You begin by assuming the premise you're setting out to prove. You lay aside special conditions for your first cause while denying those same conditions to the universe itself.

Why?

 

[adumbrodeus]

Here's the real question.


Is the big bang cyclical?

 

[Dre89]

RDK.

That is an elementary question.

You assume that God came into existence, or caused itself into existence, then proceeded to create the universe.

God is eternal, He always existed. In being eternal, He is changeless. Infinity cannot have change, yet this universe does. That is why it needs a first cause and God does not.


Ambrodeus do you mean cyclical as in Loop Theory? Where the universe consists of a finite set of events which infinitely cycles, having no beginning or original cause?

If so that theory is heavily flawed.

 

[RDK]

You assume that God came into existence, or caused itself into existence, then proceeded to create the universe.

Why?

God is eternal

Why?

He always existed

Why? Why can't the universe have "always existed"?

In being eternal, He is changeless

Why?

Infinity cannot have change, yet this universe does.

Why? Where are you getting this from?

That is why it needs a first cause and God does not.

Please elaborate. Stating things without explaining why is not debating.

Basically I could start a thread right now claiming I'm the King of England with no actual argument whatsoever - just stating it - and it'd be the equivalent of what you do in every single one of your posts.

 

[Dre89]

Why?

That's impossible, that's why it can't be the case.

Why?

It's not so much saying that God can be eternal or finite, it's more saying that the original being must be eternal, and that's what God is.

I arrive at the notion of God because I concluded that there must be an original being, it must be self-necessary, therefore eternal, and must be being itself.

From there I realised what I was describing is commonly referred to as 'God'.

Why? Why can't the universe have "always existed"?

Because infinity removes first, middle and last causes.

If you remove first cause, you remove its effect, which is the middle cause, which then removes its effect, which is the last cause, which then removes its effect, which is the last effect.

Why?

To be self-necessary, you He must be eternal, otherwise He would have been caused into existence by another being meaning He isn't self-necessary.

So to be self-necessary, you must be eternal, and eternity cannot have change, because apart from my example above, if it changed it is infact governed by time, removing its self-necessity.

Why? Where are you getting this from?

The universe changes, and considering I established that infinity cannot change, this universe cannot be infinite, because it in fact changes.

Please elaborate. Stating things without explaining why is not debating.


Basically I could start a thread right now claiming I'm the King of England with no actual argument whatsoever - just stating it - and it'd be the equivalent of what you do in every single one of your posts.

The first sentence is covered above.

I have premises behind every one of my arguments. I'm just used to debating other people who already understand the cosmological argument at a basic level, I didn't think all this would need to be explained.

 

[Reaver197]

And now you're just changing the definition of what you said earlier. You clearly meant "cause and effect" in terms of there being a clear, linear flow of events, in which one event had to be caused by a preceding event. When I give an example where such a notion is not representative of how our universe acts, you just meant "movement".

Anyway, you still fail to understand the nature of virtual particles. There really is no "change", no overall "movement" for the most part. The interaction of the virtual pairs in empty space produce an overall zero amount of energy added or reduced from the system.

I only said time, not space, could be an illusion. Emphasis on "could be", not that it is. And how could a "being" exist outside of the universe? The notions of "singles" or "multiples", cohesiveness, thought, intention, any sense of solidarity that can be construed as "being" only make sense within the universe. Such terms mean nothing when applied to a "place" where space, time (whatever it may be), and matter do not even exist. You are caught in the paradox of using notions that only work within our universe to explain how something outside of the universe created the universe.

In the end though, you really need to supply a definition of what you mean by "being". Because, your first sentences are either complete gibberish, or grammatically incorrect, or both. Your whole argument seems to be based on this idea of "being" whose definition seems to change in each context you use it in.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ambrodeus do you mean cyclical as in Loop Theory? Where the universe consists of a finite set of events which infinitely cycles, having no beginning or original cause?

If so that theory is heavily flawed.

Why?


I need some substance to that.

 

[RDK]

Dre, I understand the cosmological argument. The problem is I don't think you understand it.

 

[Reaver197]

FYI, there is no such thing as "loop theory" for cosmology. There is "loop quantum gravity", and its resulting "loop quantum cosmology", in which one of the possible (as in, not the only way to interpret it) implications is a universe that cycles between between big bangs and big crunches. However, loop quantum gravity has much more to do with trying to unite gravity with quantum mechanics than whether the universe goes through cycles or not.

 

[blazedaces]

And how is that in anyway an explanation of how a deity exists? You just say "it must exist to fulfill the requirement of being itself" essentially. "Multiple beings can't be being itself"? Do you even know what you're saying?

Also, time itself might just be an illusion caused by the interactions of the different systems of the universe, and not actually at all any integral part of its nature. Plus, the idea of any direct "cause-and-effect" chain of events can lose all meaning in quantum dynamics. Take the idea of virtual particles. At any given moment, a particle and an antiparticle can appear briefly, only to come back together to annihilate each other.

However, the antiparticle can also be described in physics as a particle moving backwards in time. So, essentially, you can think of virtual particles as one particle going forward and backwards in time to create and annihilate itself. So much for "cause and effect".

Reaver, I would really like to correct you on this statement.

Before I begin, I'm not a theoretical physicist, and even many of them find quantum mechanics confusing as hell, but I will try to explain the nature of why particles and antiparticles collide in the vacuum of space:

The uncertainty principle states in a sense that we can not know both where a particle is NOW and where it is going to be NEXT at the same time (we can't know both the position and velocity). But it doesn't stop there... at particles... it applies to EVERYTHING. That's right... even something as arbitrary as empty space.

Now... think about this for a few minutes. What is empty space? It's EMPTY... there's NOTHING supposedly inside it. That means that we know RIGHT NOW there's nothing there... and what's going to be there LATER... NOTHING again! Wait a tick! That contradicts the uncertainty principle... and here's where particles and antiparticles colliding comes into play.

But no where is it theorized that for some reason these particles and antiparticles colliding somehow discredits "cause and effect" or that somehow particles are "created out of nothing" which refutes the conservation of matter.

It just means that even in the deaths of space... what we think of completely empty, there is still movement... nothing can EVER anywhere have a temperature that is truly 0 Kelvin...

-blazed

 

[Reaver197]

I will say that maybe my exact recollection of how virtual particles behave isn't entirely accurate, especially since I might be mixing it up with what I've read about virtual photons, but I fail to see how you corrected me in any real sense. Please read up on virtual particles and point out to me where I've gone wrong.

Empty space isn't empty, cause it involves the appearance and destruction of virtual pairs of particles, generally occurring within planck time (the time it takes light to move a planck distance). So, I think the idea of saying "at any given moment, a particle and an antiparticle can appear briefly" sounds appropriate to me.

The cause and effect thing might've been a little overgeneralized, but my main point was that the common conception of "cause and effect" might not be entirely representative or even required by the universe to operate on. Maybe virtual particles weren't the best example of that, but they happened to be on my mind at the time.

Also, it's not the conservation of matter, it's the conservation of energy, and virtual particles introduce nor take away (for the most part) any energy. The only tricky situation where they do is in the case of Hawking radiation, which is where a virtual pair appears on the edge of a black hole, and one particle falls in, but the other radiates away, which is what causes black holes to radiate away the energy they have.

 

[blazedaces]

I will say that maybe my exact recollection of how virtual particles behave isn't entirely accurate, especially since I might be mixing it up with what I've read about virtual photons, but I fail to see how you corrected me in any real sense. Please read up on virtual particles and point out to me where I've gone wrong.

Empty space isn't empty, cause it involves the appearance and destruction of virtual pairs of particles, generally occurring within planck time (the time it takes light to move a planck distance). So, I think the idea of saying "at any given moment, a particle and an antiparticle can appear briefly" sounds appropriate to me.

The cause and effect thing might've been a little overgeneralized, but my main point was that the common conception of "cause and effect" might not be entirely representative or even required by the universe to operate on. Maybe virtual particles weren't the best example of that, but they happened to be on my mind at the time.

Also, it's not the conservation of matter, it's the conservation of energy, and virtual particles introduce nor take away (for the most part) any energy. The only tricky situation where they do is in the case of Hawking radiation, which is where a virtual pair appears on the edge of a black hole, and one particle falls in, but the other radiates away, which is what causes black holes to radiate away the energy they have.

Nothing you said was really incorrect... but I have seen people use virtual particles as an excuse to disprove the conservation of matter/energy... that's all.

-blazed

 

[Reaver197]

Oh, that's an...interesting argument. I've never heard of or seen that one before, ha ha.

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbio you can't have reference points, or change in infinity.

Euclid would disagree (as would I and anyone else who's had first year geometry and was paying attention.)

Euclid's FIRST POSTULATE: To draw a straight line from any point to any point.

The... point? You can have reference points on an infinitely long (time)-line.

The universe may be infinitely expanding in that it constantly expands until its end,

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ... wow. Ok so anyway, no, lol If its infinite, it's not going to "end" ... it may be really hard to see anything, all matter may be energy at that point, but it's still "there." ... and that's only one of two possibilities, the other being that universe is in fact finite, and that it will cease to exist. At all. Some day.

but you cannot have infinity in the sense of an infinitely long space of cause-and effect-matter.

What do you even mean by this?

"The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less." -source

And no I don't think the universe could have existed infinitely, in the sense that time as we know it would be infinite, for the above reason.

"Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, unified time and space as space-time, but time was still different from space, and was like a corridor, which either had a beginning and end, or went on for ever. However, when one combines General Relativity with Quantum Theory, Jim Hartle and I [Stephen Hawking], realized that time can behave like another direction in space under extreme conditions. This means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe, was like the south pole of the Earth , with degrees of latitude, playing the role of time. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe, would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole." -source

 

[Deleted member]

Can someone explain something for me?

If the universe is expanding...what's it expanding into? What are the outer reaches of space pushing out into?

/is dumb

 

[KrazyGlue]

Do any of you have a good amount of legal knowledge? If so, can someone explain to me why attempted murder is so much lighter of a crime than murder? If, for example, a man kills his wife, he will likely get life in prison (maybe death sentence). Now let's examine the case of Thomas and Connie Culp. Thomas decided he'd try to pull a murder-suicide. Thomas pulled out a gun and shot Connie in the face from 8 feet away, then shot himself in the face. Surprisingly, both survived, although Connie is now horribly disfigured. Thomas got 7 years in jail. He will be out in two years.

This pisses me off. It's complete injustice! Just because Connie miraculously survived being shot in the face from point blank range makes it better? So much better that he only gets seven years instead of life? He shot a person in the face and all he gets is a slap on the wrist, as if to say "next time, aim better".

Story here, although be warned that there is an uncomfortable image: http://www.wtov9.com/news/15408240/detail.html

 

[Sieguest]

Do any of you have a good amount of legal knowledge? If so, can someone explain to me why attempted murder is so much lighter of a crime than murder? If, for example, a man kills his wife, he will likely get life in prison (maybe death sentence). Now let's examine the case of Thomas and Connie Culp. Thomas decided he'd try to pull a murder-suicide. Thomas pulled out a gun and shot Connie in the face from 8 feet away, then shot himself in the face. Surprisingly, both survived, although Connie is now horribly disfigured. Thomas got 7 years in jail. He will be out in two years.

This pisses me off. It's complete injustice! Just because Connie miraculously survived being shot in the face from point blank range makes it better? So much better that he only gets seven years instead of life? He shot a person in the face and all he gets is a slap on the wrist, as if to say "next time, aim better".

Story here, although be warned that there is an uncomfortable image: http://www.wtov9.com/news/15408240/detail.html

I think of it as sort of like this: The courts are not supposed to place sentimental value and such on rulings. In a sense, life is just an object. So if you think of the difference in terms of an object, it might be a little clearer.

You have an object
I take the object
you no longer have the object.
Or...
You have an object
I try and take the object
You still have the object.

In the first situation the crime was perpetrated in its entirety and someone lost something unlawfully, the perpetrator will be punished accordingly. In the second situation the crime is cut short and our someone hasn't lost anything. It's all back at square one. The perpetrator will be punished for trying, but since in the objective sense nothing has changed, it would be illogical to give that perpetrator the same punishment as the perpetrator in situation one would receive, having actually taken the object.

That's pretty much how courts look at it. Doing so otherwise would be adding a sentimental value to it and as many lawyers will say, a prejudice against the defendant, which in turn can jeopardize the job of the judge.

 

[Dre89]

And now you're just changing the definition of what you said earlier. You clearly meant "cause and effect" in terms of there being a clear, linear flow of events, in which one event had to be caused by a preceding event. When I give an example where such a notion is not representative of how our universe acts, you just meant "movement".

What I meant is any change in general. Any movement from potentiality to actuality. Infinity is still impossible with any sort of change.

Anyway, you still fail to understand the nature of virtual particles. There really is no "change", no overall "movement" for the most part. The interaction of the virtual pairs in empty space produce an overall zero amount of energy added or reduced from the system.

Are you suggesting there is no motion in the universe? When I move my hand, my hand has moved from potentiality to actuality, it could move in potential, then it moved in actuality.

All there needs to be is change for infinity to be impossible.

I only said time, not space, could be an illusion. Emphasis on "could be", not that it is. And how could a "being" exist outside of the universe? The notions of "singles" or "multiples", cohesiveness, thought, intention, any sense of solidarity that can be construed as "being" only make sense within the universe. Such terms mean nothing when applied to a "place" where space, time (whatever it may be), and matter do not even exist. You are caught in the paradox of using notions that only work within our universe to explain how something outside of the universe created the universe.

What? Time and Space exist only within the universe. That which created time and space would obviously exist outside the universe.

In the end though, you really need to supply a definition of what you mean by "being". Because, your first sentences are either complete gibberish, or grammatically incorrect, or both. Your whole argument seems to be based on this idea of "being" whose definition seems to change in each context you use it in.

No that's just your lack of understanding of philosophy. Any philosophy student would understand what I mean when I say being. If you're going to enter metaphysical debates at least have a basic understanding of the terminology.

Krazyglue here's an even more controversial example-

Two people get drunk at a party and drive home. X hits a tree, and Y hits a child. B naturally gets a far more severe punishment. Is that fair? their negligence was the same, but Y was a bit more unlucky.

 

[Dre89]

Ignore this post, didn't need to do a double one.