Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Correct me where I'm wrong....

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:34:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

I disagree with P2. God can create timeless beings.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:44:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:34:49 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

I disagree with P2. God can create timeless beings.

If 'x' is timeless, then it is atemporally eternal (this is one of the very argument theists like William Lane Craig give to claim that God couldn't be created in the first place when debating the "what caused God?" issue). The idea of something that is eternal, being created, makes no sense.
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:48:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:44:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

If 'x' is timeless, then it is atemporally eternal (this is one of the very argument theists like William Lane Craig give to claim that God couldn't be created in the first place when debating the "what caused God?" issue). The idea of something that is eternal, being created, makes no sense.

To be eternal is not to also mean not to have a beginning. As such vampires are immortal but at one point they didn't. Being immortal doesn't automatically mean no being, it just means no end.
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
Pennington
Posts: 1,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:50:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:48:02 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:44:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

If 'x' is timeless, then it is atemporally eternal (this is one of the very argument theists like William Lane Craig give to claim that God couldn't be created in the first place when debating the "what caused God?" issue). The idea of something that is eternal, being created, makes no sense.

To be eternal is not to also mean not to have a beginning. As such vampires are immortal but at one point they wasn't. Being immortal doesn't automatically mean no beginning, it just means no end.
*FIXED
DDO Debate Champion Forum
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:51:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The real problem lies with anything which is "outside time" or "outside the universe". We literally cannot coherently comprehend such a concept. What you posit is plausible, but the premises are by no means certain, because perhaps "outside the universe" has different time concepts. What would they be? No clue, we have no way of comprehending what it is like.

Theists who claim God is "outside time" generally actually think God is simply in his own time, and that he created our universe with its own time scale. Of course, this creates problems, so they try to equate outside of time with timeless with eternal, depending on what the debate requires. None of it is logically provable, because we can't assign any concrete concepts to things which we cannot conceptualize, and we cannot conceptualize with any accuracy things "outside" time or the universe.

Any assertions about these things are unsupported.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:54:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:50:33 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:48:02 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:44:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

If 'x' is timeless, then it is atemporally eternal (this is one of the very argument theists like William Lane Craig give to claim that God couldn't be created in the first place when debating the "what caused God?" issue). The idea of something that is eternal, being created, makes no sense.

To be eternal is not to also mean not to have a beginning. As such vampires are immortal but at one point they wasn't. Being immortal doesn't automatically mean no beginning, it just means no end.
*FIXED

That's not really "fixed". You are speaking of a plural, therefore what you meant was "weren't".

But either way: eternal =/= immortal, though your broader point about an infinity moving forward that nonetheless has a beginning is valid; of course, by accepting that validity you accept that it's possible your God also has a beginning.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

It's the ole' superman flaw.

What if there was no actual beginning? What if God is and always was both the source and cause of a self-differentiated reality, something like the One in Neoplatonism?

FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:02:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, a big part of their debate was over whether the singularity was real or whether it was just a limit. Quentin Smith argued that it was real (that was part of his cosmological argument against God), and Craig argued that it was just a limit. So Craig would probably deny your first premise.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:08:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:


FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

In what way?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:10:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist


Advocates of transcendental argument would probably deny your second premise. Some people believe abstract entities, like numbers, laws of logic, etc., are created by God. But they're not created in the sense of God bringing them into existence from a state of non-existence. Rather, they're continuously created in the sense that God sustains them in existence.

So, I suppose they might say that God could've been the timeless sustainer of the singularity who caused it to begin expanding. Of course that would raise questions about what it meant for God to "create" the universe since it has traditionally been understood to be a creation out of nothing.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 12:38:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:48:02 AM, Pennington wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:44:38 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

If 'x' is timeless, then it is atemporally eternal (this is one of the very argument theists like William Lane Craig give to claim that God couldn't be created in the first place when debating the "what caused God?" issue). The idea of something that is eternal, being created, makes no sense.

To be eternal is not to also mean not to have a beginning.

Yes it does, especially if that in question is non-temporally eternal.

As such vampires are immortal but at one point they didn't.

Vampires are neither eternally existing in the past, or non-temporally eternal. so this is a false-analogy. Somebody is immortal if they have the ability to live eternally in the future, that doesn't mean they have the ability to live eternally in the past, or non-temporally eternal. You are committing the fallacy of equivocation with regards to the word eternal. It can have many meanings:

1) Existing eternally in the past, but not future
2) Existing eternally in the future, but not past
3) Existing eternally in the past, and future
4) Existing eternally in a non-temporal sense

...And there is most likely more.

Being immortal doesn't automatically mean no being, it just means no end.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:04:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

It's the ole' superman flaw.

What if there was no actual beginning? What if God is and always was both the source and cause of a self-differentiated reality, something like the One in Neoplatonism?


FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

So....Which premise do you disagree with?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:05:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:02:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, a big part of their debate was over whether the singularity was real or whether it was just a limit. Quentin Smith argued that it was real (that was part of his cosmological argument against God), and Craig argued that it was just a limit. So Craig would probably deny your first premise.

It seems inconsistent to adhere to the standard BB model, and not adhere to it's prediction of a singularity.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:06:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:10:24 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist


Advocates of transcendental argument would probably deny your second premise. Some people believe abstract entities, like numbers, laws of logic, etc., are created by God. But they're not created in the sense of God bringing them into existence from a state of non-existence. Rather, they're continuously created in the sense that God sustains them in existence.

So, I suppose they might say that God could've been the timeless sustainer of the singularity who caused it to begin expanding. Of course that would raise questions about what it meant for God to "create" the universe since it has traditionally been understood to be a creation out of nothing.

Fair enough. My argument at least undermines the KCA to the point of it failing, even if not showing God exists. I guess it is possible for one timeless entity to sustain another, even if the sustained timeless entity didn't have a beginning.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 1:50:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:05:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, a big part of their debate was over whether the singularity was real or whether it was just a limit. Quentin Smith argued that it was real (that was part of his cosmological argument against God), and Craig argued that it was just a limit. So Craig would probably deny your first premise.

It seems inconsistent to adhere to the standard BB model, and not adhere to it's prediction of a singularity.

I was just reading this article by Bill Craig...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

In it, he makes a distinction between the ontology of the singularity and the reality of the singularity. It turns out that he doesn't deny the reality of it. He just denies the ontology of it. He says:

"For the question arises as to the ontological status of the singularity. It needs to be emphasized that this is not the same question as the reality of the singularity, as that expression is usually employed in contemporary cosmological theory."

...

"By contrast, when the body's radius equals zero, a real, and not merely coordinate, singularity occurs. Now the initial cosmological singularity was certainly a real singularity. But that does not settle the question of its ontological status.

"The ontological status of the Big Bang singularity is a metaphysical question concerning which one will be hard-pressed to find a discussion in scientific literature. The singularity does not exist in space and time; therefore it is not an event. Typically it is cryptically said to lie on the boundary of space-time. But the ontological status of this boundary point is virtually never discussed."

...

"Now to my mind, at least, a good case can be made for the assertion that this singular point is ontologically equivalent to nothing."

So, Craig would probably deny that his view is inconsistent with the standard model, although I'm not sure how he distinguishes between the singularity being "real," and the singularity being "ontological equivalent to nothing." Maybe you can read the article and figure out what the difference is.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 2:24:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I just submitted this question to Bill Craig's web page. He probably won't answer it, though. I've submitted lots of questions, and he's only answered one of them.

Howdy, Dr. Craig!

I was just reading this article you wrote on the singularity:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

I'm confused by the distinction you make between the reality of the singularity and the ontology of the singularity. You say that the singularity was real, but that it is ontological equivalent to nothing. If the singularity is ontological equivalent to nothing, then in what sense is it real?

Also, for a long time now, I've been struggling with how to wrap my mind around God creating the universe ex-nihilo from a state of timeness. The problem is that I can't figure out how it's possible for there to have been a state of affairs in which God exists timelessly without the universe since the state of affairs could not have been temporally prior to the universe, nor since the beginning of the universe.

You claimed in _Time & Eternity_ that we could think of God as existing at the boundary of space and time, and I've been struggling to wrap my head around that. I came up with an illustration, but I am not totally satisfied with it and wondered what you would think of it.

In Calculus, we had to calculate intervals and draw them on a timeline. There were open intervals and closed intervals. Open intervals include everything between two points, but not the points themselves, whereas closed intervals included the points themselves. To illustrate that on a time line, we would draw a circle around the point for an open interval, and a colored in circle around the end points for a closed interval.

Since a point has no dimension, it is the boundary of the interval, whether open or closed, since anything that comes after it is arbitrarily close to it.

So, you could represent God on a time line as the closed interval from zero to infinity, and you could represent the universe on a time line as the open interval from zero to infinity. That would explain how God could be causally prior to the universe.

But I'm not totally satisfied that that wouldn't make God temporally prior to the universe. I suspect it might could since, as I said before, a point has no dimension along the line and is therefore a boundary. On the other hand, there does seem to be a sense in which the point is temporally prior to everything that comes after the point.

What do you think? It would be a huge help if you could answer this question for me because I have been struggling with it for a few years now with no satisfying resolution. There was a time when I thought the KCA made God's existence virtually certain, but I'm no longer confident that the argument is sound, although I still suspect it probably is.

Sam
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:28:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:04:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

It's the ole' superman flaw.

What if there was no actual beginning? What if God is and always was both the source and cause of a self-differentiated reality, something like the One in Neoplatonism?



FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

So....Which premise do you disagree with?

The whole argument fails because there is no ontological difference between the "scientific" hypothesis that everything that can happen does happen and the theistic belief that "with God all things are possible." In effect, the argument states, "God isn't necessary but God did it."
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:40:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 12:08:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:


FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

In what way?

If it turns out that we do live in a holographic universe, the fact that consciousness exists in particulars, e.g., human beings, then it also exists universally--something some forms of theism assert and materialistic "science" denies.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 3:55:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:40:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:08:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:


FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

In what way?

If it turns out that we do live in a holographic universe, the fact that consciousness exists in particulars, e.g., human beings, then it also exists universally--something some forms of theism assert and materialistic "science" denies.

I'm confused. You claim science denies universal consciousness, while also claiming that scientists are working on proving the theory. Seems a contradiction.

And I'm not aware of anything in the holographic principle that would necessarily require a universal consciousness.

For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I assume that's what you're referring to?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:11:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:55:44 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 3:40:24 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 12:08:21 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:


FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

In what way?

If it turns out that we do live in a holographic universe, the fact that consciousness exists in particulars, e.g., human beings, then it also exists universally--something some forms of theism assert and materialistic "science" denies.

I'm confused. You claim science denies universal consciousness, while also claiming that scientists are working on proving the theory. Seems a contradiction.

LOL! Tell me about! They (the scientists) just don't know it.

And I'm not aware of anything in the holographic principle that would necessarily require a universal consciousness.

For an overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

I assume that's what you're referring to?

Shatter a holographic plate and each shard contains the whole image, not just a part of it. Proving that we live in a holographic universe would prove that there is no "out there" out there; it would prove not just the interconnectedness of things, but their essential oneness. It would prove the literal truth of what Meister Eckhart said: "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me."
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 4:24:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh, and I should add that quantum entanglement ensures that the shards are never really separated.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 6:07:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 3:28:40 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:04:12 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:58:44 AM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

It's the ole' superman flaw.

What if there was no actual beginning? What if God is and always was both the source and cause of a self-differentiated reality, something like the One in Neoplatonism?



FYI, if scientists ever succeed in proving we live in a holographic universe--and there is already good scientific reason to think we do--atheism (and some forms of theism) will have suffered a major conceptual defeat.

So....Which premise do you disagree with?

The whole argument fails because there is no ontological difference between the "scientific" hypothesis that everything that can happen does happen and the theistic belief that "with God all things are possible." In effect, the argument states, "God isn't necessary but God did it."

Your rebuttal fails because it's not relevant. Which premise do you disagree with?
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 6:46:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 6:07:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Your rebuttal fails because it's not relevant. Which premise do you disagree with?

A rational argument is not about right premises, but getting to he truth of a matter. Your premise-fetish defeats that purpose.

Since "with God all things are possible" and "anything that can happen will happen" are ontologically identical, your premises might as well be rat farts.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 6:50:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 6:46:25 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/28/2013 6:07:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Your rebuttal fails because it's not relevant. Which premise do you disagree with?

A rational argument is not about right premises, but getting to he truth of a matter. Your premise-fetish defeats that purpose.

The truth of the matter, is reached by whether premises are true or false, and whether they follow each other logically. If the premises are true, and the argument follows logically, then the conclusion is inescapable. In order to show the argument fails, you must undermine/ falsify at least one of the premises, or show that the argument is logically invalid. You have done neither.


Since "with God all things are possible" and "anything that can happen will happen" are ontologically identical, your premises might as well be rat farts.

Since what you said doesn't defeat/undermine any of the premises, or show how the argument is using an illogical structure, your rebuttal against my argument here might as well be hooker queefs.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 6:53:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

It"s preposterous to contend that because our laws of physics break down as we reach the limits of their applicability, that this fact somehow proves that God doesn"t exist. The implication to be taken from the fact that there are limits to our theories and our mental powers of reason certainly doesn"t deny a transcendent realm, if anything it points to a deeper reality upon which our four dimensional frame of reference is contingent.

P2 isn"t even in the ballpark of valid, it just demonstrates that you didn"t understand what I was trying to explain in the Big Bang thread. It"s the phenomenon of relativistic time dilation that renders the singularity "timeless", but you either aren"t recognizing, or still don"t understand the different frames of reference associated with Relativity. Time dilation is a matter of differences in elapsed time as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or under different gravitational conditions. It"s gravitational time dilation that renders the singularity "timeless" under the General Theory of Relativity. Gravitational time dilation also creates a "timeless" state beyond the event horizon of a black hole, and black holes are created when stars collapse, so P2 fails. The Special Theory also states that time dilates as an object accelerates and comes to a stop at the speed of light, so a photon is also timeless, yet photons are created, so P2 fails.

You are also equivocating between two general conceptions of time, one that it is an epistemological construct defined as what our clocks measure, the other postulates that time has an ontological existence that is independent of human beings, Einstein"s spacetime fabric. The relativistic phenomenon of time dilation doesn"t support the idea that a temporally and spatially transcendent being could not be a first cause of the universe by any stretch of the imagination. It is a fact that there are limits to the applicability of Einstein"s Relativity theory in the natural world, but the leap of faith that you can infer from that fact some kind of certainty about conclusions regarding the ontology of a transcendent realm is just inane.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:02:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 1:50:20 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 3/28/2013 1:05:20 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology by William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, a big part of their debate was over whether the singularity was real or whether it was just a limit. Quentin Smith argued that it was real (that was part of his cosmological argument against God), and Craig argued that it was just a limit. So Craig would probably deny your first premise.

It seems inconsistent to adhere to the standard BB model, and not adhere to it's prediction of a singularity.

I was just reading this article by Bill Craig...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

In it, he makes a distinction between the ontology of the singularity and the reality of the singularity. It turns out that he doesn't deny the reality of it. He just denies the ontology of it. He says:

"For the question arises as to the ontological status of the singularity. It needs to be emphasized that this is not the same question as the reality of the singularity, as that expression is usually employed in contemporary cosmological theory."

...

"By contrast, when the body's radius equals zero, a real, and not merely coordinate, singularity occurs. Now the initial cosmological singularity was certainly a real singularity. But that does not settle the question of its ontological status.

"The ontological status of the Big Bang singularity is a metaphysical question concerning which one will be hard-pressed to find a discussion in scientific literature. The singularity does not exist in space and time; therefore it is not an event. Typically it is cryptically said to lie on the boundary of space-time. But the ontological status of this boundary point is virtually never discussed."

...

"Now to my mind, at least, a good case can be made for the assertion that this singular point is ontologically equivalent to nothing."

So, Craig would probably deny that his view is inconsistent with the standard model, although I'm not sure how he distinguishes between the singularity being "real," and the singularity being "ontological equivalent to nothing." Maybe you can read the article and figure out what the difference is.

The Standard Big Bang model predicts a point at which the laws of physics break down, space and time break down. The ontological status of the singularity is assumed, like with the conclusion of any notion. You don't argue for an apple existing, and then debate on the ontological status of it. It is implied by the very mentioning of said thing. Therefore, it seems to me, that to shout on top of rooftops about how The Big Bang supports your case, and then deny the ontological status of one of the major predictions, seems inconsistent. His argument about a distinction between "real" and "having ontological status" isn't convincing either. It actual is another inconsistency. If something is real, then it has a positive ontological status.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:12:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/28/2013 6:53:03 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 3/28/2013 11:29:15 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Keep in mind, this argument only potentially works, if one assumes a Big Bang singularity.

P1: If God exists, then he is the creator of the singularity
P2: Timeless entities cannot be created
P3. The singularity = Timeless entity
P4: God does not exist

I don't think theists will have a problem with P1 and P2, and P4 logically follows from P1, P2, and P3. Thus, I only feel compelled to justify P3. The singularity postulates a point in which the laws of physics, space, and time break down and make no sense. It isn't until the inflation of the singularity, that the laws of physics, space and time began to exist. However, a singularity at a point at which no expansion has taken place (at t=0) there is no time, and the idea of time at a point in which the laws of physics, space and time itself have broken down, makes little sense. Since this is the case, the unexpanded singularity = timeless, and thus, temporally eternal and cannot be created. However, if God exists, the singularity would have been created. Therefore, God does not exist.

If there are any flaws in this argument, please let me know.

It"s preposterous to contend that because our laws of physics break down as we reach the limits of their applicability, that this fact somehow proves that God doesn"t exist.

I'm never held that the conclusion was true. I was almost certain that the argument was going to fail (hence the correct me where I'm wrong, and not if I'm wrong). Whenever I see an argument that seems compelling, I will test it out on here, and refrain from belief in said conclusion until it's shown that it can handle tough critique.

The implication to be taken from the fact that there are limits to our theories and our mental powers of reason certainly doesn"t deny a transcendent realm, if anything it points to a deeper reality upon which our four dimensional frame of reference is contingent.

P2 isn"t even in the ballpark of valid, it just demonstrates that you didn"t understand what I was trying to explain in the Big Bang thread. It"s the phenomenon of relativistic time dilation that renders the singularity "timeless", but you either aren"t recognizing, or still don"t understand the different frames of reference associated with Relativity. Time dilation is a matter of differences in elapsed time as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or under different gravitational conditions. It"s gravitational time dilation that renders the singularity "timeless" under the General Theory of Relativity. Gravitational time dilation also creates a "timeless" state beyond the event horizon of a black hole, and black holes are created when stars collapse, so P2 fails. The Special Theory also states that time dilates as an object accelerates and comes to a stop at the speed of light, so a photon is also timeless, yet photons are created, so P2 fails.

"Gravitational time dilation also creates a "timeless" state beyond the event horizon of a black hole, and black holes are created when stars collapse"


This is actually a very good point, and I think it shuts down P2 fairly well.


You are also equivocating between two general conceptions of time, one that it is an epistemological construct defined as what our clocks measure, the other postulates that time has an ontological existence that is independent of human beings, Einstein"s spacetime fabric. The relativistic phenomenon of time dilation doesn"t support the idea that a temporally and spatially transcendent being could not be a first cause of the universe by any stretch of the imagination. It is a fact that there are limits to the applicability of Einstein"s Relativity theory in the natural world, but the leap of faith that you can infer from that fact some kind of certainty about conclusions regarding the ontology of a transcendent realm is just inane.

No I don't think there was an equivocation, because I never mentioned "time" in a sense of human measurement. I was always referring to it as a fabric, with real ontological status.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2013 7:14:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
So, this thread doesn't need to continue anymore. Sidewalker gave an example of a timeless entity, which is created. Thus, shutting down premise 2, and the entire argument.