Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do Kalam propoents answer this?

Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 8:35:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Most argue an actual infinite can't exist. However isn't a Gravitational Singularity infinite?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 8:36:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
*proponents
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:00:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have no idea what Kalam is, but I don't think that singularities are actually "infinite" in density. But they are so dense that they can be regarded as virtually infinitely dense. I think I read somewhere that the line of "singularity" is actually 10^43 (or some number) g/m^3 I could be totally wrong though.
0x5f3759df
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 9:40:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Theists will most likely deny the ontological status of the singularity, claim it is "nothing" because it cannot exist, and then claim it is evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Regardless, The idea that a universe not beginning to exist implies an actual infinity destroys the foundation of the Kalam. The Kalam rests on the A-Theory of time. This means that if a proponent says that no beginning implies an actual infinite what they are doing is conceding the heart of B-Theory (which states the past is actual).

If A-Theory is true, then the only time that is actual is "now". This means there has never been a "now" point in the past where there has existed an infinite number of past events! This means using the Hilbert Hotel story to show that the universe must have had a beginning is a false-analogy. In Hilberts Hotel, an infinite number of things existed at the same "now" point. However, if A-Theory is true then there has never been a "now" point with an actually existing set of past "now" points. This means that the link between no beginning and an actual infinite set is an illusion in the theist's mind. Just a conception. If the universe had no beginning under A-Theory, there would have never been a "now" moment with an actual infinite set of past events. Since all that would be real is individual "now" points if A-Theory is true then this actually infinite set would never be a reality at any point in time.

We can believe in no beginning of the universeand that an actual infinite set is impossible with no contradiction. Theists are trying to imagine the universe in their mind in one "now" point conceptually, but with this universe including an infinite number of "now" points in their head and claiming it is illogical. This is completely fallacious, as it is a red herring. If A_-Theory is true there would never be a "now" point with an infinite number of "now" points. Thus, there is nothing illogical about a universe with no beginning if all that is making it illogical is the idea that an infinite set cannot actually exist.
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 10:18:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 9:40:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists will most likely deny the ontological status of the singularity, claim it is "nothing" because it cannot exist, and then claim it is evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Regardless, The idea that a universe not beginning to exist implies an actual infinity destroys the foundation of the Kalam. The Kalam rests on the A-Theory of time. This means that if a proponent says that no beginning implies an actual infinite what they are doing is conceding the heart of B-Theory (which states the past is actual).

If A-Theory is true, then the only time that is actual is "now". This means there has never been a "now" point in the past where there has existed an infinite number of past events! This means using the Hilbert Hotel story to show that the universe must have had a beginning is a false-analogy. In Hilberts Hotel, an infinite number of things existed at the same "now" point. However, if A-Theory is true then there has never been a "now" point with an actually existing set of past "now" points. This means that the link between no beginning and an actual infinite set is an illusion in the theist's mind. Just a conception. If the universe had no beginning under A-Theory, there would have never been a "now" moment with an actual infinite set of past events. Since all that would be real is individual "now" points if A-Theory is true then this actually infinite set would never be a reality at any point in time.

We can believe in no beginning of the universeand that an actual infinite set is impossible with no contradiction. Theists are trying to imagine the universe in their mind in one "now" point conceptually, but with this universe including an infinite number of "now" points in their head and claiming it is illogical. This is completely fallacious, as it is a red herring. If A_-Theory is true there would never be a "now" point with an infinite number of "now" points. Thus, there is nothing illogical about a universe with no beginning if all that is making it illogical is the idea that an infinite set cannot actually exist.

This is why I love you Rational_Thinker.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/11/2013 11:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 10:18:01 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:40:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists will most likely deny the ontological status of the singularity, claim it is "nothing" because it cannot exist, and then claim it is evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Regardless, The idea that a universe not beginning to exist implies an actual infinity destroys the foundation of the Kalam. The Kalam rests on the A-Theory of time. This means that if a proponent says that no beginning implies an actual infinite what they are doing is conceding the heart of B-Theory (which states the past is actual).

If A-Theory is true, then the only time that is actual is "now". This means there has never been a "now" point in the past where there has existed an infinite number of past events! This means using the Hilbert Hotel story to show that the universe must have had a beginning is a false-analogy. In Hilberts Hotel, an infinite number of things existed at the same "now" point. However, if A-Theory is true then there has never been a "now" point with an actually existing set of past "now" points. This means that the link between no beginning and an actual infinite set is an illusion in the theist's mind. Just a conception. If the universe had no beginning under A-Theory, there would have never been a "now" moment with an actual infinite set of past events. Since all that would be real is individual "now" points if A-Theory is true then this actually infinite set would never be a reality at any point in time.

We can believe in no beginning of the universeand that an actual infinite set is impossible with no contradiction. Theists are trying to imagine the universe in their mind in one "now" point conceptually, but with this universe including an infinite number of "now" points in their head and claiming it is illogical. This is completely fallacious, as it is a red herring. If A_-Theory is true there would never be a "now" point with an infinite number of "now" points. Thus, there is nothing illogical about a universe with no beginning if all that is making it illogical is the idea that an infinite set cannot actually exist.

This is why I love you Rational_Thinker.

I love you too man! Lol

The next time a Theist says "no beginning of the universe would mean an actual infinite which is illogical.".....Just say "Thankfully only now is actual, and the past does not exist. Since there is no infinite set of past events that actually exists right now as we speak, then this illogical set you conjured up in your mind has no bearing on reality, as reality only consists of right now! This holds even if the universe had no beginning!"

This means eternal inflation models are not illogical at all if we assume A-Theory, as many of them evade the BVG theorem quite nicely as well without invoking "messy singularities" (like Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton's paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal").

"There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe "expands" in both halves of the full de Sitter space." - Alan Guth

This means the Kalam is an utter failure. The Big Bang and the BVG theorem fail to establish a true beginning with a singularity where the laws of physics break down. Most cosmologists think the singularity is outdated anyway:

"[T]here is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted." - Ethan Siegel

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [unified theory] will not contain the singular histories that charicterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 12:05:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The curvature of space-time caused by a singularity expressed as an integer is a number that approaches infinity. But what this means simply is that space times curves perpendicular to its natural state. Imagine it like drawing a line on paper, then draw another line at a 45 degree angle to it. If you were to move that second line slowly upwards to make it 90 degrees, you would eventually reach the point where it is infinitely close to 90 degrees right before it becomes 90 degrees. This is not what proponents of the Kalam Argument argue against. They claim that it is mathematically impossible for an actual infinite regression of events.

To claim that there is no such thing as an actual infinite is also a valid argument. Singularities are formed from a finite amount of mass. You cannot make something infinite out of something finite. But first we must ask, what is infinite about a singularity? We know that its gravitational force is not infinite in magnitude, but gravitation is really the only thing we know about singularities.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 3:16:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 12:05:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
You cannot make something infinite out of something finite.
So after all your BS you actually do disagree with your Story book and YOU negate Miracles after all!

Your vindicated mentor moi!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 4:16:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 3:16:01 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/12/2013 12:05:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
You cannot make something infinite out of something finite.
So after all your BS you actually do disagree with your Story book and YOU negate Miracles after all!

Your vindicated mentor moi!

Miracles are exceptional occurrences that don't follow the universe rules, and we are talking about the universe rules here Mr vendicator
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:25:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 3:16:01 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/12/2013 12:05:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
You cannot make something infinite out of something finite.
So after all your BS you actually do disagree with your Story book and YOU negate Miracles after all!

Your vindicated mentor moi!

Note the word 'You.'
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:29:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Well, A-theory isn't identical with Presentism. There are various A-theories of time like the growing-block theory, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org...

But, what gets me...is that coming into being involves more than just having existed for a finite amount of time, even on A-theory.

Dr. Craig lists something like 7 conditions something must meet in order to have come into being, and only one of those is having existed for a finite amount of time.

So, the impossibility of actual infinites, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, etc. would only show that the universe is temporally finite, which does not equate with its having come into being. Sure, the universe had a first or initial state. But, so what? We've been given no better reason to think that this state came into being rather than that it exists out of necessity.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 9:37:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 7:29:53 AM, Pwner wrote:
Well, A-theory isn't identical with Presentism. There are various A-theories of time like the growing-block theory, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Growing Block is the least accepted theory of time, barely has any defenders, and has serous problems. It also implies that your non-existence before birth is just as real as your existence now. This is something Craig would reject as it destroys that which is "intuitively obvious", which his argument depend on.


But, what gets me...is that coming into being involves more than just having existed for a finite amount of time, even on A-theory.

Agreed! This is exactly the point I made in my debate with Pennington with regards to the KCA:

http://www.debate.org...


Dr. Craig lists something like 7 conditions something must meet in order to have come into being, and only one of those is having existed for a finite amount of time.

So, the impossibility of actual infinites, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, etc. would only show that the universe is temporally finite, which does not equate with its having come into being.

This is so true. A finite past does not equate to a coming into being, because this assumes time "coming into being" is even possible when we have no evidence of this (all evidence of things beginning to exist involve a time when the did not exist). This is why Richard Swinburne and Adolf Grunbaum's definition of "begins to exist" is much better than Dr. Craig's.

Sure, the universe had a first or initial state. But, so what? We've been given no better reason to think that this state came into being rather than that it exists out of necessity.

This is what I have been saying for years. You cannot get "the singularity popped into existence out of nothing and expanded" from "a singularity existed and expanded". This is a non-sequitur.
Pwner
Posts: 92
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 10:33:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 9:37:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 7:29:53 AM, Pwner wrote:
Well, A-theory isn't identical with Presentism. There are various A-theories of time like the growing-block theory, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Growing Block is the least accepted theory of time, barely has any defenders, and has serous problems. It also implies that your non-existence before birth is just as real as your existence now. This is something Craig would reject as it destroys that which is "intuitively obvious", which his argument depend on.



But, what gets me...is that coming into being involves more than just having existed for a finite amount of time, even on A-theory.

Agreed! This is exactly the point I made in my debate with Pennington with regards to the KCA:

http://www.debate.org...


Dr. Craig lists something like 7 conditions something must meet in order to have come into being, and only one of those is having existed for a finite amount of time.

So, the impossibility of actual infinites, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, etc. would only show that the universe is temporally finite, which does not equate with its having come into being.

This is so true. A finite past does not equate to a coming into being, because this assumes time "coming into being" is even possible when we have no evidence of this (all evidence of things beginning to exist involve a time when the did not exist). This is why Richard Swinburne and Adolf Grunbaum's definition of "begins to exist" is much better than Dr. Craig's.


Sure, the universe had a first or initial state. But, so what? We've been given no better reason to think that this state came into being rather than that it exists out of necessity.

This is what I have been saying for years. You cannot get "the singularity popped into existence out of nothing and expanded" from "a singularity existed and expanded". This is a non-sequitur.

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that Growing-Block theory is widely accepted (though I do incidentally endorse it), just that A-theory is more general than Presentism (which has some uber bizarre implications).

Just read that debate and it doesn't seem like much of a debate to me. You mopped the floor lol, well done.

I wish someone would call Craig out on this in their debates with him. E.g. "My opponent hasn't given us any reason to think the universe came into being since each of his proposed evidences would at best show that the universe had an initial state, something even God would have on his view." :P
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 10:58:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 10:33:39 AM, Pwner wrote:
At 5/12/2013 9:37:14 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 7:29:53 AM, Pwner wrote:
Well, A-theory isn't identical with Presentism. There are various A-theories of time like the growing-block theory, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Growing Block is the least accepted theory of time, barely has any defenders, and has serous problems. It also implies that your non-existence before birth is just as real as your existence now. This is something Craig would reject as it destroys that which is "intuitively obvious", which his argument depend on.



But, what gets me...is that coming into being involves more than just having existed for a finite amount of time, even on A-theory.

Agreed! This is exactly the point I made in my debate with Pennington with regards to the KCA:

http://www.debate.org...


Dr. Craig lists something like 7 conditions something must meet in order to have come into being, and only one of those is having existed for a finite amount of time.

So, the impossibility of actual infinites, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, etc. would only show that the universe is temporally finite, which does not equate with its having come into being.

This is so true. A finite past does not equate to a coming into being, because this assumes time "coming into being" is even possible when we have no evidence of this (all evidence of things beginning to exist involve a time when the did not exist). This is why Richard Swinburne and Adolf Grunbaum's definition of "begins to exist" is much better than Dr. Craig's.


Sure, the universe had a first or initial state. But, so what? We've been given no better reason to think that this state came into being rather than that it exists out of necessity.

This is what I have been saying for years. You cannot get "the singularity popped into existence out of nothing and expanded" from "a singularity existed and expanded". This is a non-sequitur.

Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that Growing-Block theory is widely accepted (though I do incidentally endorse it), just that A-theory is more general than Presentism (which has some uber bizarre implications).

My main point as just that I would doubt Craig would retreat to Growing Block. This view is almost as counter-intuitive as B-Theory, and many of his arguments rely on what is "intuitively obvious".


Just read that debate and it doesn't seem like much of a debate to me. You mopped the floor lol, well done.

Thanks!


I wish someone would call Craig out on this in their debates with him. E.g. "My opponent hasn't given us any reason to think the universe came into being since each of his proposed evidences would at best show that the universe had an initial state, something even God would have on his view." :P

It is strange indeed. There is actually a video of Craig on you-tube explaining how the universe would not come into being on B-Theory using a ruler analogy. The ruler analogy being that the ruler has a staring point, but the ruler does not come into being at the starting point. It made my laugh, because that ruler analogy could still apply even if A-Theory was true. He basically just opened the door wide open for Premise 2 to be false on either view.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 11:09:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:10:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 10:18:01 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:40:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists will most likely deny the ontological status of the singularity, claim it is "nothing" because it cannot exist, and then claim it is evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Regardless, The idea that a universe not beginning to exist implies an actual infinity destroys the foundation of the Kalam. The Kalam rests on the A-Theory of time. This means that if a proponent says that no beginning implies an actual infinite what they are doing is conceding the heart of B-Theory (which states the past is actual).

If A-Theory is true, then the only time that is actual is "now". This means there has never been a "now" point in the past where there has existed an infinite number of past events! This means using the Hilbert Hotel story to show that the universe must have had a beginning is a false-analogy. In Hilberts Hotel, an infinite number of things existed at the same "now" point. However, if A-Theory is true then there has never been a "now" point with an actually existing set of past "now" points. This means that the link between no beginning and an actual infinite set is an illusion in the theist's mind. Just a conception. If the universe had no beginning under A-Theory, there would have never been a "now" moment with an actual infinite set of past events. Since all that would be real is individual "now" points if A-Theory is true then this actually infinite set would never be a reality at any point in time.

We can believe in no beginning of the universeand that an actual infinite set is impossible with no contradiction. Theists are trying to imagine the universe in their mind in one "now" point conceptually, but with this universe including an infinite number of "now" points in their head and claiming it is illogical. This is completely fallacious, as it is a red herring. If A_-Theory is true there would never be a "now" point with an infinite number of "now" points. Thus, there is nothing illogical about a universe with no beginning if all that is making it illogical is the idea that an infinite set cannot actually exist.

This is why I love you Rational_Thinker.

I love you too man! Lol

The next time a Theist says "no beginning of the universe would mean an actual infinite which is illogical.".....Just say "Thankfully only now is actual, and the past does not exist. Since there is no infinite set of past events that actually exists right now as we speak, then this illogical set you conjured up in your mind has no bearing on reality, as reality only consists of right now! This holds even if the universe had no beginning!"

This means eternal inflation models are not illogical at all if we assume A-Theory, as many of them evade the BVG theorem quite nicely as well without invoking "messy singularities" (like Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton's paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal").

"There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe "expands" in both halves of the full de Sitter space." - Alan Guth

This means the Kalam is an utter failure. The Big Bang and the BVG theorem fail to establish a true beginning with a singularity where the laws of physics break down. Most cosmologists think the singularity is outdated anyway:

"[T]here is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted." - Ethan Siegel

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [unified theory] will not contain the singular histories that charicterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow

lol...the past doesn't exist?? I know a lot of evolutionists that are gonna hate you for disproving their entire theory.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 11:23:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 11:09:42 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 11:10:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 10:18:01 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:40:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists will most likely deny the ontological status of the singularity, claim it is "nothing" because it cannot exist, and then claim it is evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Regardless, The idea that a universe not beginning to exist implies an actual infinity destroys the foundation of the Kalam. The Kalam rests on the A-Theory of time. This means that if a proponent says that no beginning implies an actual infinite what they are doing is conceding the heart of B-Theory (which states the past is actual).

If A-Theory is true, then the only time that is actual is "now". This means there has never been a "now" point in the past where there has existed an infinite number of past events! This means using the Hilbert Hotel story to show that the universe must have had a beginning is a false-analogy. In Hilberts Hotel, an infinite number of things existed at the same "now" point. However, if A-Theory is true then there has never been a "now" point with an actually existing set of past "now" points. This means that the link between no beginning and an actual infinite set is an illusion in the theist's mind. Just a conception. If the universe had no beginning under A-Theory, there would have never been a "now" moment with an actual infinite set of past events. Since all that would be real is individual "now" points if A-Theory is true then this actually infinite set would never be a reality at any point in time.

We can believe in no beginning of the universeand that an actual infinite set is impossible with no contradiction. Theists are trying to imagine the universe in their mind in one "now" point conceptually, but with this universe including an infinite number of "now" points in their head and claiming it is illogical. This is completely fallacious, as it is a red herring. If A_-Theory is true there would never be a "now" point with an infinite number of "now" points. Thus, there is nothing illogical about a universe with no beginning if all that is making it illogical is the idea that an infinite set cannot actually exist.

This is why I love you Rational_Thinker.

I love you too man! Lol

The next time a Theist says "no beginning of the universe would mean an actual infinite which is illogical.".....Just say "Thankfully only now is actual, and the past does not exist. Since there is no infinite set of past events that actually exists right now as we speak, then this illogical set you conjured up in your mind has no bearing on reality, as reality only consists of right now! This holds even if the universe had no beginning!"

This means eternal inflation models are not illogical at all if we assume A-Theory, as many of them evade the BVG theorem quite nicely as well without invoking "messy singularities" (like Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton's paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal").

"There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe "expands" in both halves of the full de Sitter space." - Alan Guth

This means the Kalam is an utter failure. The Big Bang and the BVG theorem fail to establish a true beginning with a singularity where the laws of physics break down. Most cosmologists think the singularity is outdated anyway:

"[T]here is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted." - Ethan Siegel

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [unified theory] will not contain the singular histories that charicterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow

lol...the past doesn't exist??

If Presentism (the view that William Lane Craig holds) is true, then the past does not exist, the future does not exist, and only the "now" point exists.

I know a lot of evolutionists that are gonna hate you for disproving their entire theory.

What? lol How does that disprove Evolution? Evolution only requires that the past existed, not that the past exists. Notice the different between past and present tense?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:34:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 11:23:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

lol...the past doesn't exist??

If Presentism (the view that William Lane Craig holds) is true, then the past does not exist, the future does not exist, and only the "now" point exists.

I'll have to look into Presentism, but it sounds like maybe WLC is dropping some of the same acid that Hawking uses. The now that exists "now" is different than the now that existed when I began typing this paragraph. That now is now in the past yet obviously exists, as is evidenced by the beginning of the paragraph.

I know a lot of evolutionists that are gonna hate you for disproving their entire theory.

What? lol How does that disprove Evolution? Evolution only requires that the past existed, not that the past exists. Notice the different between past and present tense?

Ok, I came in in the middle of a discussion and that one comment stood out. I'll look into WLC's acid trip.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2013 7:47:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 7:34:53 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 5/12/2013 11:23:50 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

lol...the past doesn't exist??

If Presentism (the view that William Lane Craig holds) is true, then the past does not exist, the future does not exist, and only the "now" point exists.

I'll have to look into Presentism, but it sounds like maybe WLC is dropping some of the same acid that Hawking uses. The now that exists "now" is different than the now that existed when I began typing this paragraph. That now is now in the past yet obviously exists, as is evidenced by the beginning of the paragraph.

There are three main views of time:

Presentism (A-Theory): The past is not actual. The present is actual. The future is not actual.
Possibilism (A-Theory with B-Theory properties): The past is actual. The present is actual. The future is not actual.
Eternalism (B-Theory): The past is actual. The present is actual. The future is actual.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument has a chance if either Presentism or Possibilism is true. If Eternalism is true, then Premise 2 of the Kalam Cosmological Argument is false. This is because the universe would not actually "begin to exist" at The Big Bang, and would just involve a tenseless 4D block extending in an "before" direction at The Big Bang. Possibilism is riddled with too many logical problems, and is the least accepted theory of time. This means that the Kalam Cosmological Argument's plausibility hinges on Presentism being true. Craig knows this as well:

"From start to finish, the kalam cosmological argument is predicated upon the A-Theory of time. On a B-Theory of time, the universe does not in fact come into being or become actual at the Big Bang; it just exists tenselessly as a four-dimensional space-time block that is finitely extended in the earlier than direction. If time is tenseless, then the universe never really comes into being, and, therefore, the quest for a cause of its coming into being is misconceived." - William Lane Craig

In the philosophy of time, Presentism and Eternalism are the two most accepted theories. If any theory of time is correct, it is one of these two. A-Theory is powerful as it is very simple and intuitive, and B-Theory is powerful as it best explains relativity and quantum mechanics. We do not know which theory is correct at this moment, and philosophers have been debating this for a while.


I know a lot of evolutionists that are gonna hate you for disproving their entire theory.

What? lol How does that disprove Evolution? Evolution only requires that the past existed, not that the past exists. Notice the different between past and present tense?

Ok, I came in in the middle of a discussion and that one comment stood out. I'll look into WLC's acid trip.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 1:27:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/12/2013 12:05:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The curvature of space-time caused by a singularity expressed as an integer is a number that approaches infinity. But what this means simply is that space times curves perpendicular to its natural state. Imagine it like drawing a line on paper, then draw another line at a 45 degree angle to it. If you were to move that second line slowly upwards to make it 90 degrees, you would eventually reach the point where it is infinitely close to 90 degrees right before it becomes 90 degrees. This is not what proponents of the Kalam Argument argue against. They claim that it is mathematically impossible for an actual infinite regression of events.

To claim that there is no such thing as an actual infinite is also a valid argument. Singularities are formed from a finite amount of mass. You cannot make something infinite out of something finite. But first we must ask, what is infinite about a singularity? We know that its gravitational force is not infinite in magnitude, but gravitation is really the only thing we know about singularities.

Will no one refute me? It would be a crying shame to find out that I might actually be right.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 4:46:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 1:27:19 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/12/2013 12:05:09 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The curvature of space-time caused by a singularity expressed as an integer is a number that approaches infinity. But what this means simply is that space times curves perpendicular to its natural state. Imagine it like drawing a line on paper, then draw another line at a 45 degree angle to it. If you were to move that second line slowly upwards to make it 90 degrees, you would eventually reach the point where it is infinitely close to 90 degrees right before it becomes 90 degrees. This is not what proponents of the Kalam Argument argue against. They claim that it is mathematically impossible for an actual infinite regression of events.

To claim that there is no such thing as an actual infinite is also a valid argument. Singularities are formed from a finite amount of mass. You cannot make something infinite out of something finite. But first we must ask, what is infinite about a singularity? We know that its gravitational force is not infinite in magnitude, but gravitation is really the only thing we know about singularities.

Will no one refute me? It would be a crying shame to find out that I might actually be right.

You can make something infinite out of something finite. Calculus has proven mathematically that a convergent some of an infinite set equals a finite. However, a divergent infinite cannot be summed to a finite. So mathematically they can exist. Or are you one of those people who think that the sum of {1/2, 1/4,1/8,...ad infinitum} equals infinite, because it equals 1.

A gravitational singularity is actually an infinite if they exist. The way the physics works is when the black hole forms a portion of the mass gets inserted into a point, or zero space. That point is the singularity and is a division by zero. What you're referring to is outside of the singularity where you're forever approaching it. However, that is a convergent infinite, and what happens if you touch it, or are apart of it when it forms is up for debate. Doing anything with infinite, or division by zero is usually left undefined because it plays havoc with regular logic.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 6:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 8:35:19 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Most argue an actual infinite can't exist. However isn't a Gravitational Singularity infinite?

If a singularity actually exists (and I don't think it does except as a boundary or limit), then it would not be an actually infinite number of things. Rather, it would have a density that's infinite in magnitude. I don't think the arguments against actually infinite collections would apply. Or, if they do, I don't see how.
"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
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:03:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 6:02:11 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 5/11/2013 8:35:19 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Most argue an actual infinite can't exist. However isn't a Gravitational Singularity infinite?

I don't think the arguments against actually infinite collections would apply. Or, if they do, I don't see how.

The MBR is a far better argument for infinite because only if the universe is an actual infinite can you explain why it's always the same distance away regardless of our location. If the universe were finite then it shouldn't appear to be the same distance away and different parts should appear to be different distances away. Otherwise you'd have to believe the naive notion that we're the center of the universe.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 8:03:10 PM, medv4380 wrote:
The MBR is a far better argument for infinite because only if the universe is an actual infinite can you explain why it's always the same distance away regardless of our location. If the universe were finite then it shouldn't appear to be the same distance away and different parts should appear to be different distances away. Otherwise you'd have to believe the naive notion that we're the center of the universe.

medv4380, I don't understand what you're saying. What is "the MBR"? And what do you mean by the universe being "always the same distance away regardless of our location"? The universe isn't any distance away from us, is it? After all, we are IN the universe.

Do you mean to say that the farthest objects we can see in the universe are the same distance in every direction? Because if that's what you mean, then no, it doesn't follow that the universe is infinite or that we are the center of the universe.

The observable universe is smaller than the actual universe. Since the universe is expanding isotropically, the farther away something is to us, the faster is it moving away from us. So at some point, objects move away from us so fast that its light can't reach us. That's why the observable universe is smaller than the whole universe.

With that in mind, we should expect that the farthest objects we can see in every direction are the same distance in every direction. The reason is because they're moving at about the same speed away from us, and they are at the edge of what is observable. So we should expect to be at the center of the observable universe even if we are not at the center of the whole universe.

Does that make sense? I'm not sure if I'm explaining that clearly.
"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
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 8:35:19 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
Most argue an actual infinite can't exist. However isn't a Gravitational Singularity infinite?

When cosmologists speak of a singularity, they mostly mean an ideal description sort of like the ideal gas law, there is no such thing as the ideal gas, it just creates a baseline. Another example is taken from biology, when Mendelian genetics was combined with Darwinism's biometrics, the Hardy-Weinberg theorem set a baseline for measuring evolution against an equilibrium of no other influences like natural selection, predation, sexual selection, environmental influences, etc. But this equilibrium doesn't exist in nature.

Likewise, the singularity is a mathematical ideal limit to how far "back" the universe shrinks to until distances between any two points = 0. THis is sometimes called infinite density, but that's just math talk, there's nothing in existence that has ever been infinitely dense, just like there's nothing that's infinitely fast (that something would reach its destination before it left).
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:47:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, "proponents" of the kalam Cosmological Argument have a name, they're called mutakallim (plural mutakallimiin).
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 8:50:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/11/2013 11:10:14 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 10:18:01 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
At 5/11/2013 9:40:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Theists will most likely deny the ontological status of the singularity, claim it is "nothing" because it cannot exist, and then claim it is evidence for creatio ex nihilo.

Regardless, The idea that a universe not beginning to exist implies an actual infinity destroys the foundation of the Kalam. The Kalam rests on the A-Theory of time. This means that if a proponent says that no beginning implies an actual infinite what they are doing is conceding the heart of B-Theory (which states the past is actual).

If A-Theory is true, then the only time that is actual is "now". This means there has never been a "now" point in the past where there has existed an infinite number of past events! This means using the Hilbert Hotel story to show that the universe must have had a beginning is a false-analogy. In Hilberts Hotel, an infinite number of things existed at the same "now" point. However, if A-Theory is true then there has never been a "now" point with an actually existing set of past "now" points. This means that the link between no beginning and an actual infinite set is an illusion in the theist's mind. Just a conception. If the universe had no beginning under A-Theory, there would have never been a "now" moment with an actual infinite set of past events. Since all that would be real is individual "now" points if A-Theory is true then this actually infinite set would never be a reality at any point in time.

We can believe in no beginning of the universeand that an actual infinite set is impossible with no contradiction. Theists are trying to imagine the universe in their mind in one "now" point conceptually, but with this universe including an infinite number of "now" points in their head and claiming it is illogical. This is completely fallacious, as it is a red herring. If A_-Theory is true there would never be a "now" point with an infinite number of "now" points. Thus, there is nothing illogical about a universe with no beginning if all that is making it illogical is the idea that an infinite set cannot actually exist.

This is why I love you Rational_Thinker.

I love you too man! Lol

The next time a Theist says "no beginning of the universe would mean an actual infinite which is illogical.".....Just say "Thankfully only now is actual, and the past does not exist. Since there is no infinite set of past events that actually exists right now as we speak, then this illogical set you conjured up in your mind has no bearing on reality, as reality only consists of right now! This holds even if the universe had no beginning!"

This means eternal inflation models are not illogical at all if we assume A-Theory, as many of them evade the BVG theorem quite nicely as well without invoking "messy singularities" (like Anthony Aguirre and Steven Gratton's paper called "Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal").

"There may be models with regions of contraction embedded within the expanding region that could evade our theorem. Aguirre & Gratton have proposed a model that evades our theorem, in which the arrow of time reverses at the t = -1 hypersurface, so the universe "expands" in both halves of the full de Sitter space." - Alan Guth

This means the Kalam is an utter failure. The Big Bang and the BVG theorem fail to establish a true beginning with a singularity where the laws of physics break down. Most cosmologists think the singularity is outdated anyway:

"[T]here is no reason to believe that our Universe came from a singularity, and this outdated idea should have died as soon as inflation was accepted." - Ethan Siegel

"It is widely expected that this new improved theory [unified theory] will not contain the singular histories that charicterised Einstein"s theory." - John Barrow

That argument is worthless of course, since tensed truths are used all the time, we can speak of the impossibility of an actual infinity just as we speak all the time and have a discourse on the reality of the past in terms of timeless content about facts.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 9:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Magic, here is the problem with RT's (usual) handwaving objection,

The claim is that the past was not successively infinite, meaning if we count the tensed truths leading up to the present now, those could never in principle equal infinity. So just because the physical and dynamical past does not exist any longer if presentism is true, he still must show how that undercuts the timeless truth of tensed content.

Content of a sentence is timeless and if its true, it's always and ever true in any possible world. If it's true Kennedy was shot in '63, then that tensed truth is still true today, even though there doesn't exist a time block where poor Kennedy is being shot.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 9:13:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:03:51 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Magic, here is the problem with RT's (usual) handwaving objection,

I did not hand wave anything away. I conceded in the philosophy thread that I was wrong about my argument here, and that one can still use the argument from an actual infinity to show the universe is not eternal.


The claim is that the past was not successively infinite, meaning if we count the tensed truths leading up to the present now, those could never in principle equal infinity. So just because the physical and dynamical past does not exist any longer if presentism is true, he still must show how that undercuts the timeless truth of tensed content.

Content of a sentence is timeless and if its true, it's always and ever true in any possible world. If it's true Kennedy was shot in '63, then that tensed truth is still true today, even though there doesn't exist a time block where poor Kennedy is being shot.
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2013 9:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/13/2013 9:13:21 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/13/2013 9:03:51 PM, Apeiron wrote:
Magic, here is the problem with RT's (usual) handwaving objection,

I did not hand wave anything away. I conceded in the philosophy thread that I was wrong about my argument here, and that one can still use the argument from an actual infinity to show the universe is not eternal.

It was rather hand-waving... just sayin




The claim is that the past was not successively infinite, meaning if we count the tensed truths leading up to the present now, those could never in principle equal infinity. So just because the physical and dynamical past does not exist any longer if presentism is true, he still must show how that undercuts the timeless truth of tensed content.

Content of a sentence is timeless and if its true, it's always and ever true in any possible world. If it's true Kennedy was shot in '63, then that tensed truth is still true today, even though there doesn't exist a time block where poor Kennedy is being shot.