|
no it is the current theory the standard model is based on ,, i do not make the claim but every major cosmological physicists you really are grasping at straws now.. but in any event it is not needed either way
you are the one describing time and its interactions to causality not me... if you want to provide a different model you can choose to..
i am merely demonstrating that all phsysical forces are unified pre big bang ,, but for arguments sake so you will quit grasping at semantiC straws let us assume unified field theory is wrong...........
guess what ?
it does not matter your model still contradicts itself. once again the burdern is on you not me
i am merely providing some current physics to help you understand how causality can cease to produce infinite series but my logic is not dependent on it as i can merely argue form a double standard standpoint as i have and xelin has ... you keep grapsing at these semantics and ignoring your contradictions
once again the burden is on you to tell me why my assertion of your contradiction is false
i have already logically demonstrated with our without the physics based on YOUR ASSUMPTIONS THAT GOD DOES NOT REQUIRE A CAUSE
i can merely you use your own values you present as i have several times and xelin did
if you want to provide different values you can but we are working with the ones provided
if i want all i have to say based on your logic is the isolated event of the big bang is not sufficient evidence to say that the universe cam from nothing before the bigbang
and is subject to the rules of causality....
if you claim god is not subject to the rules of casualty .. it creates a double standard,, or contradiction
THERE IS NO REASON THAT IS LOGICALLY TENABLE THAT THE AN ATEMPORAL UNIVERSE CANNOT BE ITS OWN CAUSE /// ONCE YOU POSTULATE THAT AN ATEMPORAL GOD CAN BE ITS OWN CAUSE..
really you keep ignoring this simple point , but at least you are trying
if you cannot accept Craigs , kamal or any other first cause argument creates its own contradiction no matter what paper they wrap it in , then really there is not much more to talk about
as we cannot even get you to agree or acknowledge what a dual standard or contradiction is
|
Just to make clear my position in the argument so it does not get mixed up, I was asserting that on our scientific understanding of the universe alone, there is no reason to assert that "God neccesarily exists and the universe does not". I hesitantly would go further in saying that, in fact, the scientific understanding of the universe might suggest "The universe exists necessarily" is a more defensible and justified position than invoking a neccesary God.
This may be a metaphysically problematic position to hold however.
|
CM, I'm going to go through all your replies later on tonight and I'll get back to you after that, I have a good idea of what you're saying (the parts you've reiterated 12 times now) but I'm missing your reply as a whole. You'll just have to be patient 
|
ok ok i will try harder to be patient i thought you were intentioanl ignoring my point why i kept saying it over and over i just wanted you to acknowledge it.... if i was hostile i apologize i will tone it down
i admit these types of debates excite me lol as i do not get to have them often and sometimes i tend to jump to conclusions dealing with mis-communications and what they imply,,as i should be more patient as not to scare away the people i get to share this with .. sorry if my implications offended you.....
but first i will reiterate the previous assertion just so it is very clear and also i will provide a better format
it will make it easier to understand the illustrations .. the next posts will deal with craigs contradiction in how he views time ... as both on this same post would just be a ridiculously long single post
1 i am not claiming he is not correct or that i can prove that he is incorrect
2 i am claiming this is not a logical proofing for a reason of existence of god
3.. i am claiming the argument is circular
4 i am claiming his views on time contradict one-another( see next post)
1. A.. the first and only needed logical contradiction is based on the values the very theory provides / the very nature of its premises contradicts itself as previously stated and now agreed upon,, in the next posts i will provide more self contained contradiction based on the very tools craig attempts to use to form his postulations
a.....if god is eternal thus does not require a cause why does the universe require one if its governing forces are eternal ?
b.....everything that begins and all matter within to exist are equivalent to the unified fields or dynamic states of the universe ....they are not equivalent only if one presupposes the existence of an exterior being , such as a god.. in craigs theory this assumption presupposes its own conclusion ... this makes it untenable justifiably speaking
c....the math goes something like this using basic conservation of energy i will use a mathematical equation to show a fallacy of circular reasoning this way you can work through the values if you wish and visualize the concept
now this next set or principlas is my original maxim and may contain some flaws as i have not worked on it for years the basic framework ,, and i actualy belief my model has less flaws than craigs ..as mine is based on the empirical evidence of current cosmological theories more consistently .... it goes at follows
d......no matter can be literally thought to begin. The only instance of something beginning to exist is the universe it self (or the totality of space and matter) beginning to exist in the separation of the post unified field. example, one might argue that a person begins to exist after conception , being born, or a certain trimester and continues to exist until their death. but this is flawed , the person's body is composed of atoms that have existed for the entire duration of this universal dynamic, and were formed in the super nova of stars, and will continue to exist long after they rot and are broken down into those atoms once again . From this perspective, matter is only ever arranged to a new state transferred bwteen one type to another ; this view is helped by de broglie as he shows that there is no real difference between matter and energy on the atomic level .. so even if the case of energy ,, it is also a form of matter reorganizing itself ...it does not begin or cease to exist.even light can be shown to have particle weight , on an atomic level it is no different than matter... it is rules by the strong and weak nuclear forces.. This undermines the argument for the causal premise that we experience things causally coming into our existence. the illustration of this circular reasoning can be arranged as this basic logic proof ..
a... X = matter /energy, and the physical forces
b.... Y = causality
c .... Z = the universe
D....... implied logic
1. all X is Y
2. z is X
3. Z is Y
Because the universe is all that has ever begun to exist in its dynamic states "all X" is equivalent to Y thus rendering craigs or kamals argument logistically circular
Actual logic
1. Z is Y
2. Z is x
3. Z is y
d.... the big-bang is not sufficient evidence to imply that the universe springs forth from nothing as there is not enough empirical evidence about the state of " before " in a process no one has ever observed e.g the state of the universal forces and matter before the big-bang
d..... zenos paradox , thomson's lamp , or gradis seriers among many others can philosophically provide enough doubt of the value of finitudes as a natural proof which would take pages all in its own.. however as this one is not really required based on the presumptions of god i can place on the dynamic pre-bigbang state with the before mentioned circular proof
e... there is no empirical evidence that the expression of time is the same before the big-bang thus if god is separate from time in the current universe , and therefore released from causality... then why can't the universe be released from causality before the big bang ? once again this support the previous logic
f..."I don't believe the universe exists necessarily"
Yet, at the same time also hold the position 'I believe that God exists neccesarily'.as xelin pointed out this position in not justifiably tenable as you give no reason why to believe one over the other
g... ....to use one of your quotes.. "As I understand equilibrium, it wouldn't be possible in the sense that no observers would be possible (the universe would be effectively "dead "
you are describing a model of the universe "dead" which is basically using the physics term
" static" static implies after the big bang the edge was form or after expansion when the edge is finally realized the universe will stop expanding and remain at its current size fro eternity unless acted on by an outside force ( god?... Einstien made the biggest mistakes of his career falsifying evidence to make the universe appear static even though hubbles evidence implied otherwise , he retracted his paper apologized and claimed it was the biggest mistake of his carrer ( i Einstein wasted to prove god existed and lost his objectivity ) but ironically his vary views on space- time have helped proved the the universe is dynamic ..... the model i am using to describes the universe is dynamic.. however i do not postulate the amount of times it changes between said dynamic states ... but ironically the existence of a first cause that is separate from the universe describes the universe will be static and would allow for observation if you could get beyond the edge ... e.g fish bowl , ant farm , etc .. this is why most scientist that are theist try to prove a static universe.... a dynamic one does not require a god .. steven hawkings himself says this well with a comment something to the effect of " if we assume the universe is static, and there is an edge ,, then we must assume there is a god " this may have been an approach you can take .. however the physical cosmological evidence right now appears the universe is not static, it is dynamic and is expanding and makes no postulates of said states outside the current state of this dynamic process..
example theists will often site this finding at an incomplete attempt to support the priori position that the universe had a beginning outside time and thus requires a cause while denying dynamic states , trying to incur a relative view on time where it matters but ignore it when it does not,; per kalam 3 basic assumptions and described values,
they will often site cosmologists produced a theorem (the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem) which requires such a universe to have a beginning."
however this is flawed for one very simple reason The BGV theorem only applies to a universe that is (on average) expanding. All eternal models are not described ,, meaning outside dynamic existence of atemporal time the very quality they assign to god,,,when it is finished it may collapse again .. or maybe turn into another dynamic state that we cannot assume much about
1...... once again theist explain this by adding one more part, god then all things being equal it requires more proof as it adds one more needed part .
2........cannot show why it is needed other than asserting it is....
2.... let us examine the theists claiming god as immaterial , yet contingently, necessary
A...... what is the mechanism of consciousness that avoids it having parts, you cannot reasonably assert a local, complex universe , that has a separate atemporal god without giving a me a reason as why i should believe this and what is the mechanism , god being nessasry coupled with this presupposing its own existence, places more burden of proof on the theist as this is circular. .. also the burden of proof is on this position because all thing being equals these two models that explain existence the theist has one more part thus must provide a reason for this part just asserting becuase it needs to be does nothing to answer this question for previous reasons stated.
a.... . the theist model also begs its own question by using contrary and perception of time ( which while be shown in the next post) terms, and explaining this by presupposing there is a god
. ironically the very assertion the theist makes , like most arguments , does not allow the theist to survive the compared burden of proofs in a logical discussion . so it returns once again to faith..
3......intelligent design as it relates to ordered complexity
a.... if you attempts to use intelligent design as it pertains to ordered complexity as a reason for a contingent simultaneous necessary, atemporal creator, then you are supposing an infinite being with the ability to, incur relate. and transmit infinite amounts of energy, you are in fact arguing a complex being , hiding this in contrary terms does nothing to avoid begging your own question for a reason... the very type of assertion aquinas would make .. example ///that since the universe is of ordered complexity.. it had to have a creator
result?.. reasonably speaking we must apply this same criteria to god , if he is infinitly complex what created god ?
the theist will often blur the lines between these two definitions , claiming god is needed , but the same time making god a simple immaterial being ,while attempting to maintain simultaneous omnipotence and avoid there owned asserted intelligent design argument, they provide no mechanism for this other than the assertion itself which is circular not to mention a contradiction of the basic terms omnipotent,immaterial,conscious,all powerful ,
so to conclude this section they avoid the question of what created god .., by asserting nothing did because god exists atemporally from time , then if my universe model also exists in an atemporal quantuum vancuum of unified fields, why does it require a separate simultaneously contingent and necessary being ,,,once again the burden of proof is on the theist ,
my model does not postulate a separate being that requires a separate definition ,, therefore since the dynamic naturalistic view i am putting forth is self explained in its own right and requires no outside influence ,, it requires , reasonably speaking less burden of proof argumentatively.
as it has one less part ....i may simply use occams razor to imply this conclusion..
why i said any serious atheist would not have a problem with this particular theory from craig
and i imagine craig would not choose to argue it with one, at least within the parameters of formal logic..he would instead choose to escape the logic through some basic assumptions of the universe .. like there was nothing but god before the universe ... =
and the fact that the big-bang happened is proof of this as this is the beginning everything with a beginning has a cause etc... but once again he is transitioning values from its post big-bang state to its pre-big-bang state ......but saying this does not make it logically provable......
however naturalism and physics sufficiently and with less burden explain why the current universe did not come from nothing , than supernatural ones prove that is does
does this make more sense ?
observations he bases these on are not sufficiently powerful enough to outweigh the contradiction inherent in his system and overcome the burdern of proof of adding one more part that does not sufficiently explain why it is more necessarily than the unfied forces ..
1 ... this is not enough to disprove he is correct ..
2... pointing out the contradiction is enough to say it is not a logical proof ,
3.... the only thing i claim is number 1 and 2 ,,,,,,,,,
in the next post i will examine how craigs model contradicts itself with its own constructions of time as to try to avoid problems that occur with his model ,,, this fails miserably at providing the burden of proof that theist need ,, but this is the typical of the modern approaches they will try
|
some of these are my thoughts and some concepts i complied from research from james stills although i am not directly quoting him in all places i am in some where i leave quotations ,, s.. i also use kalams concepts as they relate to craigs contradictions in his view between relative time and absolute ... these terms are explored in these theories and i do not take credit for them ...several ideas however i did postulate independent of these as previous original ideas in my posts ..completely based on my own quotation , ideas , and models based on information i independently acquired ... some of these ideas are a revision of stills and still could be considered dangerously close to quotation in places ...i do give him credit for helping direct me toward craigs self contradiction in the case of his view on time... it is very similar in places as i merely changes a few words here and there and the order in which they are presented as to put my own flair on it ...but the values of the approximate words are the same . kabal i directly quote as a method of bringing attention to craigs contradictions as he switches between viewpoints on time..,, i hope this clarifies both this post and some of the other mechanical problems inherent in this theory , and why in a logical sense it contradicts itself on the level of construct , not just the basic one i overtly mentioned before .......
but as i said before non of this logical dissemination is new and at least several decades old in most cases and centuries old in others.... enjoy
as craig separates times from the universe and i do not ,, i choose to rely on the theory of relativity as it pertains to time in a realistic context , the quantum model, and string theory.. .which successfully unifies them at least in concept , and the subsequent notion of a unified field of all forces in a realistic viewpoint of spacetime ..
while he runs into a basic problem ,,, he uses two different incompatible forms of time to explain himself.. The view i put forth on unified field and time are not mutually exclusive as they relate to my model and its logical assumptions in the previous post and over the course of this post..
with an unclear notion of the concepts of time . how should we view Craigs view on eternity to mean relational atemporal existence \ or is he instead viewing eternity / infinitely
1......craig can mean one of only two philisophical things using these notions
a ...Eternity is either a finite , predictable chain of events within infinite absolute time and space,
b..... or eternity is a timeless state that connotes absence of matter and perceived reality since there is nothing directly in motion.
A.....first we will examine a possibility that eternity is an infinity of time ..
1.....if eternity is infinite time" per a realist explanation of time, then we are forced to explain what events, occurred during the quantity of time preceding the existence =the universe. to put this in a theistic context Aquinas wondered often to his dismay, what was God doing before God created the universe? ...the following fit of panic and its derisive implications led him to believe the universe was the result of a choice made with purpose by god... while i touched based on this in previous posts this examines the details more closely,,,,,there is an old argument that is called " why not sooner" or if god is separate from time why did he take an eternity to create the universe , which i will get to shortly .. and this is what aquinas feared .. if the universe has a certain age what was god doing before he created it ?,, and why did he not do it sooner than he did in the face of timeless eternity
to avoid these problem craigs veiws time not as absolute but relational view which is separate and quantifiably measurable from the universe
2.. but then Craig contradicts himself in his next proof and completely switches his standpoint and agrees with the very relational view of eternity that posed problems to the previous logical examples ....thus contradicting himself as when he discusses the problem of an actual infinite, he "slips into an absolute view of time to use the principle of determination in the kalam argument’s conclusion " stills.....
, instead of the relational one we mentioned above .....this is a clear case of logical contradiction
a..... argues that the universe began because of thermodynamic properties ( entropy i assume [since everything moves toward disorder it must have a starting organized point i am agthering from this concept based on my understanding of the second law .. while i did not research this point i cannot imagine he is using any law but the second here ] and the impossibility of an actual infinite. ( which however i find slightly ironic as thermodynamics allows for infinite energy in another law but he is not a physicist so what can you expect, ..... however, if eternity is equal to utter-void, then the universe is eternal in that there can be no reality in which time cannot be existent by its own definition . ( my view of unified field) in order to effectively and syllogistically argue a god who decides an action , Craig finds it is necessary to revert to an absolutist view of time and space . It is either that contradiction which is easier to hide in terms and rhetoric or he \has little choice but to beg the question for absolute time under the implicit assumption that a god exists previous to the universe (,, i.e Aquinas used this approach as we have labeled the subtle difference between Aquinas and Craig // that you mentioned earlier // Aquinas had already failed histroically to logical prove a need for gods existence so if craig was going to accomplish anything new he could not use this standpoint he was veritably forced into this decision from the momentum of wanting to complete this model /// in spite of these differences similar problems between the two arise...) This equality is observed readily in Craig’s conclusion where he asks "why did the universe begin to exist , when it did instead of existing from eternity?."
c...Craig asks, "if the big bang occurred in a dense singularity existing from eternity, then why did the big bang occur only 15 billion years ago?"Why did the unidimensional blob of matter wait for all eternity to explode "....craig’s concern is wonders how god could choose between two outcomes that are equal in likelihood . However, he wrongly presupposes an ontological view of time that confuses timeless eternity with temporal infinity and this is the key point which i will elaborate on below....
d.. ". this very infinity he describes is supposed to be priori impossible in the kalam argument ".... In other words, if the super dense singularity exists "from eternity" how can it "wait for all eternity" before producing its inflation ?" john stills quote.....
this in my humble opinion is where the serious irreparable contrary flaws lie
e....."..In a relational view of time, the universe’s state from the first moment is its existence from eternity;" thus, Craig’s questions only make sense from a realist view of time and space. Yet, we have already seen that Craig relies upon a relational view of time in his argument to prove that the universe cannot be infinite time i.e the finitude arguments.
3....so what does this contradiction mean and what can we infer from it ??
a..." from eternity" how can it "wait for all eternity" stills..... before producing its inflation and realized existence ? In a relational view of time, the universe’s existence from the first moment is its existence seperated from eternity; thus, craig’s questions only make sense from a realist view . Yet, we have already seen that Craig relies upon a relational view of time in his argument to prove that the universe cannot be infinite in time. The kalam argument becomes entangled in this and it only manages to confuse notions of eternity when it argues that God freely chose to create the universe in a static space time.
b....If time is absolute—and the universe began to exist while God is proportionate to infinity— then his reply seems quite applicable. But if eternity is timelessness, then his reply is not sufficient because it excludes anything outside of space-time as requiring a sufficient reason for its existence. If God’s atemporal existence requires no cause then we must also admit that an atemporal unified field does not require a cause either. no matter who poses this model before you you can always bring it back to this point.. they cannot attept to escape the reason through the finitude arguments .. but for several reasons i have provided this does not satisfy reason..so once again this contradiction a theist will inevtitable be forced to observe if they want to play fair..
"This is to say that, in a relational view of time, if there is no time t prior to the existence of the universe at t = 0, then any efficient cause (such as an initial big bang singularity) must be an eternal, uncaused cause. In other words, we would have no means of determining whether the efficient cause of the universe was naturalistic or supernaturalistic " john stills.......
c...." One could now use the principle of sufficient reason to argue that, despite its timeless nature, an initial singularity is still a positive fact that requires a reason and, therefore, must be an intermediate cause rather than the primary cause. .. If an initial singularity did result in the universe and was itself efficiently caused by a first cause, then God might be that elusive first cause. However, there is no way of knowing this short of arbitrarily saying so" john stills .. but an argument i covered already however he does it so much better than me,
no theism be it personal or impersonal can negotiate the problems between the reason for god and the causation i view these values as being inversely proportionate .
In this sense i like to use Heisenberg's uncertainty principal as an approximate illustration..since the two inverse values of electrons are directly related as you measure one the others changes .. thus you cannot never know both at once... this theory theists have particular problems with as per Einstiens response "god does not play dice" if the universe behaves randomly there is no need for god....Instead referring to flawed instrumentation's , the values are not truly inverse..While i am not showing my own philosophical model here in its fullest ( only in a sense to disprove craigs logic) i did not use this principal (uncertainty) to support any claims, instead will reserve it for any of your responses on my cosmology..
While this same argument Einstein posed could be directed toward god, meaning we do not have sufficient knowledge or scope to answer why there needs to be god , as that is a flawed instrument of us as humans, not of the truth : however it cannot successfully resolves these issues logically toward the means of a proof .
since that is the framework this theory is attempting to compose itself within ... we can conclude it fails logically to provide sufficient reason ...
Also in the face of uncertainty as i will demonstrate in the following example :
(note this is my own original usage of Heisenberg's theory in this way..although it may have been discovered independently all work is mine and mine alone}
1. the problem is with this model is while he makes an admirable effort to prove the finititude to explain a reason of the purpose of god.... he leaves himself in the position of building a structure from the roof down with inferior tools . While he has expended all of his momentum to bring the explanation of the universe’s beginning to us, he has little reliability left to argue justifiably for the gods causation ( the two inverse values)... as he will run into incapability of his views on time.. if he resolves his time issue then the reason will get inversely flawed per Heisenberg.. impersonal religions manage to explain the why god exists thus negating the need for cause ( god is the universe and not separate from) making god as vague as possible . so support can always be added later for instance my own unified laws ,, god is the universe he is not seperate .. everything is god .. everything is the universe... however it runs into the inverse problem . The statement "god exists" is literally communicating nothing to us - and there will be no reason to accept it as rational, much less true.. if god is the physical laws.. once again the laws can do this on its on. This results in an needed extra step once again .. if god is universe itself and the universal laws, why does the universe need a god ?.. is fails on the how god needs a reason to be their in the first place
2... Still as i said in a previous post to you , if i was to pray it would be to the unified
field ; an impersonalist could assume me to be praying to their god , i make no assumption to the nature of this field and any consciousness it may or may not have so i would neither agree or nor disagree with them , saying instead that is an interesting approach to prove i do in fact believe in your god.. while i have never heard this type of reply between an impersonal theist and a scientist it may exist..
3.... Once again though he could then attack the logic of theistic belief to need a god to exist , if the universe is already impersonal ; why does it need an impersonal god ?....
The dynamic model of cosmology( as i call my model) does not have these inverse restrictions built into to it in the same respect ,. because it has no extra step to justify.. It ignores the why because it is not relevant.. why are we here ?..
.. because the dynamic cosmological model is infinite that is why, and we are a manifestation of matter that will randomly occur over infinity as matter reorganize itself within temporal states of the infinite dynamic states.. subsequently i use the same answer for both questions,, while it is impersonal , it is not filled with any apparent logical contradiction , and thus requires less burden.....
so to conclude my last two posts
1.... the apologist viewpoint , does nothing to satisfy Occam razor of explaining an extra step without presupposing itself ( as well as the aforementioned problems within my posts)
2....craigs relational model is incompatible with kalams absolute values of time as demonstrated , yet he attempts to use it to construct his view point of an atemporal time and god , toward the goal of explaining " how " god can exist outside the universe but not why
a... this is not logical proof and neither is it even reasonable
b... it does nothing to explain why god is necessary and the universes forces are not
c.. all things being equal the burden of proof is on the theist as it adds one more part while attempting to argue for infinite series as it relates to caausality .. this is supported by occams razor
while occams razor is not proof that craig is incorrect is shows sufficient reason why he requires more reasonable and logical proof to explain himself and the uneeded extra step of god ,, and the subsequent contradiction of his view of time ,
these things prove that this framework fails at providing a logical reason to construct a transcendental , personal diety .
I
hope this shed some light on some of craigs most clever assertions and evolving flaws
and why i see craig getting owned by a serious atheist
|
CM, I'm still going through your previous replies, so I'll likely only get back to you tomorrow, depending on how fast I can read. Also, unless you're James Still, could you please stop quoting others without citing them.
|
i do not quote any one becuase there were only a couple .. i mainly revised complied evidence from various sites and i say that in the first sentence .. i do not misrepresent this evidence as my own discovered evidence and my word choice is different all the way through .. but i will give him credit for the quotes
by the way may add a little tonight so please take you time replying if you want to reply
as i had to take a nap before writing my conclusions i spent a few hours on this as i have never really seriously entertained craig knowing it is nothing more than cosmological creationism with a few twists .. something i have never taken very seriously as it adds an needed part to the equations .. i had to read all of Craig's , kalams ; and apologist assertions as to get a better understanding where can attack it logically as it is attempting to provide a logical reason for god ,, but i think i have shown it not only fails to do this,, but also requires a larger burden of proof based on the very claims it makes
which is why an apologist would never they could do this logically anymore,, unless they are an uneducated one... although several times throughout history they have.. this still gets echoed today
they probably would instead try to argue god is more likely to exist but i have also provided proof as why this requires a larger burden of proof bases on their own constructs
there is a link provided above which illustrates an interesting debate on this topic showing the apologist view as well , watch as it gets crushed .. at least 2 or 3 of the point i made are revisited there,, but note that is of course predicted as these are the basic historical premises for debunking this model as a logical reason
|
On May 09 2010 12:03 chessmaster wrote:
i do not quote any one i merely complied evidence from various sites and i say that
You quoted James Still directly: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html. Compile evidence all you want, I would simply appreciate it if you made it known when others are speaking and not you (i.e. when you quote someone make it known, not just in the first sentence).
Edit* I'm still going through what you're saying, and doing research to bring me up to your level (at least non-mathematically), but won't be done before tomorrow. I've no doubt, you're a very bright individual.
|
there james stills is given credit and thus ethics satified ..it is edited .. i honestly was not attempting to plagiarize , but was just being lazy
|
I just woke up to someone, covered in blood and in a hospital gown, loudly saying my name and turning on the light in my bedroom..... not particularly relevant to the mysteries of the universe although at the time it seemed one!
Anyway, I read through your posts chessman, long but very interesting ^^, and it seems you have successfully demonstrated how Kalam's argument does not work for being sufficient, due to many inconsistencies, in proving God's existence. But it seems, and you concede this, that the current scientific understanding of the "before" (in terms of the universe) is in itself insufficient to show that Kalam's argument must be false, merely that the reverse is equally not established.
As such there seems no better reason (and this isn't a statement I'm putting as fact, more hoping someone will argue against it) to consider that the universe is it's own cause, or that cause and effect are irrelevant and meaningless in considering the origins of the universe, than to posit a neccesary God who causes our existence.
There is obviously the response "We cannot yet be so bold as to state that we have a good enough understanding of the "universe" to prove that it need not be caused, but we are working on it"
Although this is no more useful to us, although slightly preferable, to the religious "Well, we'll find out when we die..... "
It is possible that my lack of knowledge on contemporary science about such things has made me make the above error, and in fact we can assert certain provable facts about the origins of the universe to show that it's existence is definitely not dependant on cause, in which case soz!
|
word ,,,, very well said
but i have also shown that it requires a larger burden of proof to entertain ,
an important concept
|
Logic's inability to prove (or disprove) God tells us more about logic than God.
|
yeah well he is the one that attempts to use it to provide sufficient reason .. if he wants to play fair craig must open himself to the very rules he uses ..
I think you re missing the point of this exercise // logic is not trying to prove or disprove god ..
it is attempting to provide a logical reason to suppose their needs to be one as per cosmoly
.. this is all kamal craig and the apologists are going for.. i think if you read my posts you would find the argument you are searching for .. it is not any instristic flaw in reason it is our instrumentation's vantage points flaw as per Einsteins explanation of the uncertainty principle ,, although we could also suppose hidden variables per de broglie
For instance we cannot get outside the universe if it has an edge ,, i.e fish bowl , or ant farm.. if we could do this and our laws could explain the processes ,, then reason would do fine
from a purely theological sense i can also argue if we are truly created in gods image in a conscious sense .. there should be no reason for this claim .. i also might add there are many forms of logic . i.e formal , informal ,, fuzzy etc. not all are inclusive with each-other.. although craig is working within the realm of the Aristotelian type ,
i honestly might agree with you here this type may have trouble with it . it is not logic but our vantage point and knowledge .. logic does not = knowledge .. although both can be learned
sorry for the uber long posts but the reasons cannot be proven in short fashion .. there is just too much ground to cover
|
CM I'll get back to you tomorrow as I'm still reading (promise tomorrow, then you can refute me all day long ), in the mean time I wanted to clarify something and ask a question at the same time (you know, teach me rather than hit me in the head with a bat because you seem to think this is some sort of argument), as you seem to know what you're talking about.
As I understand you, you believe that the universe is eternal, and that in talking about the universe we should include the initial singularity (being that the universe is all things). Now, even if we assume "time" to behave "differently" in this singularity, I'm some what confused as to how this relates to the second law of thermodynamics. Namely why the big bang occurred at all, given that the singularity must have existed for an indefinite (extended?) period of time, rather than the singularity being "victim" to entropy. Now this assumes that the laws of nature are constants even in this singularity (though as I understand it, this is the point in which the laws of nature break down and are unrecognizable to us), so I'm sure my question doesn't even make sense, but I would ask if you could expand on that for me.
Of course, I'm entirely prepared for the answer (as you've said above) that you don't know what happened "before" the big bang, and that we simply don't have enough data to come to a conclusion one way or the other. This just doesn't make sense to me. If the universe is eternal, then why isn't it in a state of equilibrium, and if it is only finite, then it is not necessary and the singularity itself becomes a metaphysical quandary.
I really do appreciate your answers.
Edit* Also, could you explain to me what you mean by these two statements, I'm not following you:
(1)it is the laws of physics which are infinite and therefore so is time when all forces are unified .. time no longer exist as itr does in the universes current state when the universe is unified
--> I don't understand why the unification of the forces of nature remove time, or are you saying time becomes infinite, such that the singularity existed for an infinite amount of time? (I doubt this is what you're saying, but I've asked anyway.) Or that the universe once existed in a timeless state?
(2) universe be its own cause..i.e the laws of physics are internal
--> I'm not following how the universe is its own cause because the laws of physics are internal (to the universe?). Are you saying the laws of physics themselves are eternal, and the universe is contingent upon them, or vice-versa?
|
First of all want to point out at this time i realize you are merely arguing this side for conversations sake and not because you believe the Craig model ...and i thank you for doing that ...otherwise there would be no discussion,
I also want to point out take as long as you want to reply .. this debate has been going on for centuries.. i do not expect us to resolve it in two days.. take your time , we do not get points for speediness, and if other poeple start another topic.... oh well..
To answer your question as i understand it ,,,,, yes i make no allowances as to how the universe behaves when the fields are unified because i have never observed this ... but craig does describe how it behaves by adding an extra "part" ,, then attempts to provide sufficient reason to justify this part needing to be there....
" ala Occam's razor " god is one extra part thus requires slightly more burden of evidence...
all things being equal ,,,,the simpler explanation is more likely in a topic governed by reason...
Still , since proving craigs model is insufficient , does not prove my is , i see why you want me to exaplin myself (however my excercise was merely proving the Craig model of god and time is not sufficient proof to give a reason for god to be necessary )
In the following post i will provide those reasons , both physical , logical, and metaphysical
that the universe does not require a cause ( remember you asked)
As to keep this posts from becoming too long i will outline these reasons in the following post .. If you want a complete framework of the model i am currently working on and plan of publishing when it is complete , i think i would need to email it , it is just too much information to reasonably expect people here to want to read , but if i completely formalize that model i will need to provide my real name and a temporary intellectual property of authorship... ok on to the following post
|
I've always disagree'd with Occam's razor being employed in argument, at least in the sense "Occams razor dictates, therefore....". I personally believe it to have almost no bearing in metaphysical discussion, also "simple" seem's far too open to interpretation to be used as a basis for finding favour in two explanatory positions of the same phenomena.
|
On May 10 2010 17:55 chessmaster wrote:
In the following post i will provide those reasons , both physical , logical, and metaphysical
that the universe does not require a cause ( remember you asked)
As to keep this posts from becoming too long i will outline these reasons in the following post .. If you want a complete framework of the model i am currently working on and plan of publishing when it is complete , i think i would need to email it , it is just too much information to reasonably expect people here to want to read , but if i completely formalize that model i will need to provide my real name and a temporary intellectual property of authorship... ok on to the following post
Looking forward to the post.
|
The two basic properties of the " why " and "how" i view as being inversely proportionate unknowns per uncertainty principal ... all forms of God , be they transcendental or impersonal , attempt to resolve these by focusing the momentum on one question or another. Adding an extra part to the universe , or separate from it . To adequately show my model we need context..
1.. The context we are examining in this section of the Dynamic Model.......
A .. while answering the "Why" so far either position gives us one of two answers......
1... God created it
2... for no reason .... because it exists
B ... this model will provide a third answer to the "Why " based on the following assumptions
1...singular events within reality (everything) need a cause
2. The synergistic sum of everything does not need a cause
3. cosmological creationism does not take (2) into account in any of its forms
C... claim number one : The third answer proposed to the " Why " will demonstrate the universe does not " need" a cause
1..... this will address the assertions of William Lane Craig, Kamal , Aquinas , T. D Sullivan , and their following premise
( 1) the universe can begin to exist only if it has an external cause (this cause is identified, after further augmentation , with God).
No further context is needed.... let us begin......
( readers note : I am only dealing with causation as it pertains to answering the "Why " to " How" does not need an extra cause
my model is much larger , and deals with a significant number of other things with "How"
more thoroughly . Inversely I give sufficient " How" here to justify " Why" without needing an extra part.
I give some principles that are based on advanced calculus and physics / for the most part i will not provide the calculus . you will either have to take my assertions at face value , or work through the calculus yourself , as i am not writing a book on this forum , but it will be provided within my publishing
The Dynamic model and causation by chessmaster ...
note: (part of this is an improvement on Quentin Smiths model as he does not reconcile time and matter effectively at Time=0 in face of planck-time meaning his infinite set will not function past planck-time unless he explains it is possible .. I use T/0=Unified instead , and further more the action of the Dynamic Multiverse for the interaction of the cosmological-constant with gravity ,but i was inspired by it some 10 years ago)
Priori premises and causation
1...singular events require causation
2..." The sum of Everything " within our dynamic manifestation(universe) can exist without cause
3...reality exists
4. There may be multiple Universes
5 There are no hidden variables / or rather the interaction between separate universes would explain the appearance of them ( and we will equate the usage of hidden variable in craigs sense as god )
Support of priori (2)
I . Newton and simultaneous action at a distance
1....Newtons provides examples of instantaneous communication between bodies with gravity
a. each body in motion at T is simultaneously effected by objects at T
b. state S1 being caused by another state S2, with S2 being simultaneously caused by S1.
2...This is supported hundreds of years later by Einsteins general relativity but viewed as a curvature of space not a field .. this is also supported by my previous example of E.P.R paradox .
3.. Quantum Physics views the mechanism as a particle called the graviton . As the graviton is a function of space-time it can travel faster than the speed of light . this does not violate relativity., while it shows matter cannot travel faster than light , it does not prevent space-time itself from accomplishing this . or other zero-mass boson like states and virtual particles
1. this will support the later (VI) and lend mechanism in tandem with T/0=U , as it allow for smaller time intervals than the plank-scale
II. confirmation of Action at a distance and the paradox of E.P.R ( some call this the most profound discovery in physics)
A. Action at a distance shows the violation of one or more priori assumptions E.P.R claims using contradiction logic .Bell used the E.P.R's following assumptions to condradict.
1.reality exists
2. locality (causation)
A.Hidden variables
II. the original experiment was purely theoretical as the technology did not exist to perform experimentation , and resulted in two exceptions
1. detection loophole 2 .the communication loophole .
A....In the 1980's the experiment was moved from the thought realm into the laboratory as the technology was available .... these loopholes may now be thrown out..( I had to provide (II) and as you might read outdated material , namely the authors of the E.P.R paper , which would waste time arming you with these loopholes that no longer exist )
B. Interference pattern experiment shows forces from separate universes can interact and exist
1. this is the manifestation of dynamic states interacting ( multiple universes)
III. By violating E.P.R we can assume one or more of its assumptions are wrong
1. reality does not exist 2. not everything is local A..there are not hidden variables B...infer multiple universes per locality being violated (1) this could be viewed as the interaction of multiple universes)
IV. everetts multi-verse and the dynamic mechanism ( meaning not only have i shown simultaneously forces can interact , but this shows the forces from other universe can also interact with the forces from our own .. this can be shown in the interference experiment and the E.P.R violation
1... The multi-verse gives reasonable explanation for a dynamic state and its mechanism
VI.. Identity of particles and priori assumptions
1. matter can move between singular states
2. singular-state matter is not eternal
3. matter is eternal through reorganization from one dynamic state to another or between states of the dynamic multi-verse
4. matter is expressed by one or more forces of the unified field
5. gravity and anti-gravity(cosmological constant) maybe the the interaction of multiple universes dynamically interacting
VI... Metaphysical implications
1. if it is physically necessary that physical objects instantaneously interact with each-other then it becomes metaphysically logical and necessary
2. let T/0 = time and W,X,Y,Z = U, separate unified-force-states and parts of the unified field internal to this universe (space/time, strong /weak nuclear force , electricity/magnetism , gravity/anti-gravity )
A... The Atemporal universe at T /0= U is temporal parts , W,X,Y,Z...
B. Each of these time-states of the forces exist by something internal to the universe, namely, by one of the four time-states of one of the other four unified force-states as per priori (IV) and (V)..
C Let T/0= time at manifestation of a singular dynamic state and U=unified-field
1... If the universe at T/0 = U is W, X.Y,Z
2.. as each forced is caused to begin to exist by another force internal to the universe, it follows that the universe is caused to begin to exist, but by its internal forces
3. This and previous physical proofing justifies the claim that while singular events require a cause , "everything" that exists does not i.e the infinite universe
4. this describes the change between the last state and this state
A.. However we discover without further description i run into a problem at T=0
B .The following section will deal with this problem while also giving secondly
support to priori (VI )-[B]-(3)
VII.. infinite series , and overcoming T/0=U /planck time and priori values
1. time is continuous in the first manifested state of space-time
2, The First time state of one or more force is an "open-interval" to the other forces
3. unified-fields creates smaller units than planck- time toward infinite series/ per the quantum model of "thermodynamics" (now we come to this word usage thermodynamics , i meant in a quantum sense not a relative one .This should help answer your questions)
A. as the laws of physics break down, smaller units than planck-time can occur
B. [A] is an abstract object of T/0
C. From the unified-field, then there is no first instant that immediately follows the hypothetical ‘first instant’ T/0 =U. This is because between any two instants, there are an infinite number of other instants.
4 . T/0 = U. example, we use the value 4/8 for simplicity .But in this model it equals an abstract value less than planck-time/space
5. Between T=U and 4/8 there is 2/8 . Between T=0 and 2/8 there is 1/8 and so on and so forth to infinity
6 . this demonstrates how time is infinite at T=U and every the first instant of our current universe state is followed by a previous state
7 .this is expressed by the function of the following open/interval-integral 0> x £ 1
8.this shows that while singular events require a cause . T=U (everything) does
not require a cause
9.the interval-integral or set , is an ontological view
10. This model does not have to be intuitive to function as sufficient reason / and craig can sleep fine at night , i do not need any psychotropics
Conclusion
it is now both physically , and metaphysically possible to believe the principle of causality , and also believe the universe is its own cause while simultaneously interacting with other universe states visa vi the graviton/antigravity mechanism or other zero-mass bosons . as causality only describes singular events "within" space-time , not " everything at once" of course you might ask why the singularity of our universe chose to make a universe an not lets say Bill Clinton inhaling a joint . all i can say is i do not know , because it happened. While this is impersonal , it does not require an extra part...however while it interacts with other universes it cannot be said to be caused by them , this allows for the dynamic states to be infinite in expression
* ok breath* i do not expect a response of this .. if you wish to communicate on my model in detail i maybe should provide , e-mail so the calculus does not get out of control on this forum ,and we could continue to explore it in detail there .. though we could consider it a part of critical thinking lol i do not think people want to stare at integrals and strange looking physics formula shapes
i do not expect a response on this as it might take you a while to learn and understand all of this .. it took me years ..either you can take it at face value . or work through it . but it provided sufficient reason to justify the claim the universe can escape causality , other people have approached this from a slightly different angle . but since Alain Aspect’s confirmation of bells inequality , and the numerous independent ones over the last decade, this is usually used toward this means in whatever model you are using , be it a single universe or a multiple , one .
While Quentin smith argues from a single universe state in this particular "third question" model , i add a mechanism for the possibility of multiple dynamic universes interacting visa vi the graviton and other virtual particles i describe this furthermore as a manifestation of folded
-dimensions in space time(calibi yau -space) , in the "how " section of this paper ....and interference experiment ala everett , but it is not contingent on this possible simultaneously .and i gave only as much as was needed to metaphysically consider it here ..
|
On May 11 2010 02:47 chessmaster wrote:
* ok breath* i do not expect a response of this .. if you wish to communicate on my model in detail i maybe should provide , e-mail so the calculus does not get out of control on this forum ,and we could continue to explore it in detail there .. though we could consider it a part of critical thinking lol i do not think people want to stare at integrals and strange looking physics formula shapes
i do not expect a response on this as it would take you quite a while to learn and understand all of this .. it took me years ..either you can take it at face value . or work through it . but it provided sufficient reason to justify the claim the universe can escape causality , other people have approached this from a slightly different angle . but since Alain Aspect’s confirmation of bells inequality , and the numerous independent ones over the last decade, this is usually used toward this means in whatever model you are using
That is quite brilliant, from what I understood of it (it will take me a few reads). If this is getting published in full, let me know where I can get my hands on it, it's very, very interesting. If you want to discuss this further, I'll PM you my email. But know that the mathematical portions of this proof will be beyond me.
|
btw xelin the reason occams razor works here is becuase of all things being equal which they are here.... the theists are using the same universe we are and the same laws...the only thing that has changed is another separate part that cannot be explained...that is why it requires more evidence,,
example .. if they are going to use the current cosmological evidence to presuppose god . and give no reason for there to be one .. when the current cosmology does not require one .. Then occams razor does work effectively .. but so does common sense
it would be like saying 1+1=3 without giving the extra 1 and claiming my 1+1=2 requires less proof
as it reasonably explains itself and does not require anything else to be necessary
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
