Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God is the *only* logical cause for the BB

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.

Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:15:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

There was no Big Bang. It's only a theory that has never been proven to be the Truth. Only invisible vibrations exist but they do not take up any space and there's no matter in them. Time only exists as an illusion from each created being's perspective.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:17:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

And we don't know what happened so... ***insert miracle here***

It doesn't work that way. We can't just use God to fill in the blanks of the unexplained. That's where all the Greek gods came from, remember?
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:27:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:17:55 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

And we don't know what happened so... ***insert miracle here***

It doesn't work that way. We can't just use God to fill in the blanks of the unexplained. That's where all the Greek gods came from, remember?

Our invisible Creator is the only one who can teach us who we are in Him and how He created everything before He formed illusions to make us believe we are real. Greek gods can't explain anything because they aren't real.

This following scripture wasn't changed up much by antichrists who added all their religious ideas to a few ideas that the saints wrote and spoke about. This shows you that our Creator ( God ) didn't build anything that we perceive as our reality. All He had to do was think it into existence as a dream.

Acts 17
24: The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man,
25: nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all men life and breath and everything.
26: And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation,
27: that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us,
28: for ..In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, ..For we are indeed his offspring.'
29: Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.

Imaginary gods cannot form illusions called trees, rocks, water, human and animal bodies, etc.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.
dee-em
Posts: 6,481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:10:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here we go again. You do have to hand it to Ben, who must love the environment. He's really into this recycling business.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:11:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
God didn't need a BB. He created all things by His Word, not be making a ball of eternal matter explode.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.

If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.

If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?

Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:41:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.

If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?

Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.

You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.

Read about an inch lower.

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:51:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.

Read about an inch lower.

Ok, thanks for that. Faulty information in the first part, and argument from ignorance in the second... you're two for two there, buddy.

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:53:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:41:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.

If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?

Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.

You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"

Mathematics expresses real things. If I begin with two objects and one is removed, this can be expressed mathematically as 2 - 1. It's the same thing wih quantifying fluctuations. A fluctuation can be expressed as a 1. If these fluctuations are infinite, no successive quantification of these fluctuations is possible. But if the probability of a spark occurring is innate to these fluctuations, any innate probability will inevitably be reached given an infinite number of chances. Once this probability is inevitably reached, we can quantify the number of successive fluctuations back to point 0. Hence, it can't be eternal.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.

Read about an inch lower.

Ok, thanks for that. Faulty information in the first part, and argument from ignorance in the second... you're two for two there, buddy.

If you actually read my post you'd see that I'm setting up a dichotomy.

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 10:56:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:53:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:41:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.

If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?

Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.

You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"

Mathematics expresses real things. If I begin with two objects and one is removed, this can be expressed mathematically as 2 - 1. It's the same thing wih quantifying fluctuations. A fluctuation can be expressed as a 1. If these fluctuations are infinite, no successive quantification of these fluctuations is possible. But if the probability of a spark occurring is innate to these fluctuations, any innate probability will inevitably be reached given an infinite number of chances. Once this probability is inevitably reached, we can quantify the number of successive fluctuations back to point 0. Hence, it can't be eternal.

How do you quantify the number of fluctuations back to a point 0? How do you know a 0 point even exists?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:55:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.

Read about an inch lower.

Ok, thanks for that. Faulty information in the first part, and argument from ignorance in the second... you're two for two there, buddy.

If you actually read my post you'd see that I'm setting up a dichotomy.

I read it, and it boils down to you cannot fathom how the BB happened, therefore god. It's not your best work.


or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 10:56:13 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:53:30 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:41:17 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:38:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:13:21 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:11:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:05:38 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.

I'll ask again, since you ignored my question last time: can you explain #2? How does the occurrence of the "spark" mean we can quantify the duration between the spark and... well, I guess I don't know what you'd be quantifying in that case. Please elaborate.

Well anything that results from random chance must be in some kind of dynamic fluctuation. The amount of fluctuations that resulted in this spark is quantifiable. By counting back how many fluctuations it took to create this spark you've reached point 0. At point 0 this is the absolute beginning of whatever is fluctuating.

If we're dealing with something eternal, like energy, how can there ever be a point 0 to count back to? And how could you actually count back to that point, if it actually existed?

Exactly. There can't be a point 0 to count back to but that's exactly what would occur based on my reasoning in the OP. We would only need use mathematics.

You're assuming that there is something to quantify. You've provided no reasoning for the assertion that anything can be quantified. That's what I'm asking you to explain. So far, all I see is "if a spark happens, then we can count the number of sparks back to a 0 point." How did you arrive at the idea that there is a 0 point to count back to? How did you arrive at the idea that there is a finite number of "sparks?"

Mathematics expresses real things. If I begin with two objects and one is removed, this can be expressed mathematically as 2 - 1. It's the same thing wih quantifying fluctuations. A fluctuation can be expressed as a 1. If these fluctuations are infinite, no successive quantification of these fluctuations is possible. But if the probability of a spark occurring is innate to these fluctuations, any innate probability will inevitably be reached given an infinite number of chances. Once this probability is inevitably reached, we can quantify the number of successive fluctuations back to point 0. Hence, it can't be eternal.

How do you quantify the number of fluctuations back to a point 0? How do you know a 0 point even exists?

By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:07:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:04:08 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:55:52 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:51:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:45:40 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 10:42:32 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/3/2014 9:11:50 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Either:

(A) the Big Bang began to exist from absolutely nothing

I'm pretty sure you've been told this before, but the BB does not state the universe began to exist from nothing. That would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your argument is based on a faulty premise. There is no need for me to read the rest.

Read about an inch lower.

Ok, thanks for that. Faulty information in the first part, and argument from ignorance in the second... you're two for two there, buddy.

If you actually read my post you'd see that I'm setting up a dichotomy.

I read it, and it boils down to you cannot fathom how the BB happened, therefore god. It's not your best work.

No, I explained why will is the only logically coherent remaining option.


or

(B) the Big Bang originated from something eternally existent.

In both cases, a "spark" of some kind was needed to begin the Big Bang. Without God, this spark must've had an innate probability of occurring within absolute nothingness or within an eternally existent substance. If this spark never had an innate probability of ever occurring for either option, it would've been impossible for it to occur by chance.

1. If nothingness or an eternal thing has an innate probability of a spark occurring, that spark will inevitably occur.

2. Once this spark inevitably occurs, the duration between the spark and the beginning of absolute nothingness or the eternal substance is quantifiable.

3. Nothingness or something eternal can't have a quantifiable beginning.

C: Nothingness or an eternal thing can't have an innate probability of a spark occurring.


Both options are illogical because either (1) it leads to an infinite causal regression of necessary "sparks" or (2) is self-defeating because something eternal and absolute nothingness can't have a quantifiable beginning..

If the spark was willed into existence by an eternal cause, it wouldn't have been necessary for this spark to indefinitely occur. Thus, it would still be logically coherent for this eternal thing to exist in an eternal state because it wouldn't need a quantifiable beginning.

If laws of causality were different before the Big Bang this may be an alternative option, but even then this option still defies logic because it requires you to discard causality.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:39:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?

If there was no innate probability for any spark to have randomly occurred it just wouldn't have occurred. God isn't subject to an infinite regress because if something happens by will it didn't need to indefinitely occur.
Fly
Posts: 2,048
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:42:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?

Your last question here was the one I also have.

In any case, this thread may go on for awhile, but we will still wind up where it began: with an argument from incredulity and ignorance. As those are, by definition, flaws in logic, the title and premise of the thread fall flat.

A deity is just a coping mechanism for people who cannot wrap their heads around things or admit that we just don't know everything about existence.

Funny-- theists are perfectly capable of admitting they don't know much about god, but they MUST know why anything exists outside of that concept...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 11:44:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:39:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?

If there was no innate probability for any spark to have randomly occurred it just wouldn't have occurred. God isn't subject to an infinite regress because if something happens by will it didn't need to indefinitely occur.

True randomness has no quantifiable probability. An event occurring once does not establish probability.

And you misunderstand my question: did something cause your god? Assuming your answer is "no," why isn't it subject to causality?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:04:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:44:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:39:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?

If there was no innate probability for any spark to have randomly occurred it just wouldn't have occurred. God isn't subject to an infinite regress because if something happens by will it didn't need to indefinitely occur.

True randomness has no quantifiable probability. An event occurring once does not establish probability.

The spark had to have existed as a probability of a random outcome otherwise it wouldn't have been possible in the first place. If the number "6" was chosen at random, is there any reason for why this occurred? No. However "6" was always a possibility to have been chosen at random.

And you misunderstand my question: did something cause your god? Assuming your answer is "no," why isn't it subject to causality?

Because without a first cause there is an infinite regression of necessary causes. An infinite regression of necessary causes presupposes its own contingent existence with itself. An eternal first cause is mathematically sound and logically coherent. In the OP I had mentioned that everything either originated from absolutely nothing or from some eternal cause to avoid the infinite regression.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:08:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 11:42:34 PM, Fly wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?

Your last question here was the one I also have.

In any case, this thread may go on for awhile, but we will still wind up where it began: with an argument from incredulity and ignorance. As those are, by definition, flaws in logic, the title and premise of the thread fall flat.

A deity is just a coping mechanism for people who cannot wrap their heads around things or admit that we just don't know everything about existence.

Funny-- theists are perfectly capable of admitting they don't know much about god, but they MUST know why anything exists outside of that concept...

For causing the spark, God is necessary because the spark happened by will and not by some quantifiable mechanism.

As far as causation goes, God is the eternal cause. Something must be the thing from which everything else came from. Otherwise everything came from nothing or everything is in an infinite regress of necessary causes.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:12:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 12:04:40 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:44:47 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:39:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:28:23 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:18:07 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:12:00 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 12/3/2014 11:07:16 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
By using successive addition after expressing the number of fluctuations mathematically. I've already reasoned why a point 0 would exist. It would exist because the spark would inevitably occur given an infinite number of chances considering the spark always existed as an innate probability. At that point it's a quantitative measurement from beginning to spark.

How can you possibly know the number of fluctuations that have supposedly occurred? How could you even know the probability of a spark occurring? What if that probability isn't constant? And why can't the sparks also be infinite? What I see here is that you've created some weird science strawman composed of fluctuations and sparks. What if the energy that comprises our universe is in an eternal cycle of "pure energy" and "energy and matter" states? How could you possibly know the number of times that these cycles have occurred?

I wouldn't have to know the exact number. All I would need to know is mathematical possibility. If there exists a probability, no matter how infinitesimally small, if it's larger than 0, my argument stands. The Sparks can't be infinite because the Big Bang didn't occur in an infinite state. It was a finite event. All I'm using is math and logical coherency.
If it's an infinite cycle you'd fall into an infinite regress as I've mentioned.

So how do you know that there's a probability of a spark occurring? If it's truly random, then there is no probability to describe its occurrence.

Also, why isn't your god subject to causality or an infinite regress?

If there was no innate probability for any spark to have randomly occurred it just wouldn't have occurred. God isn't subject to an infinite regress because if something happens by will it didn't need to indefinitely occur.

True randomness has no quantifiable probability. An event occurring once does not establish probability.

The spark had to have existed as a probability of a random outcome otherwise it wouldn't have been possible in the first place. If the number "6" was chosen at random, is there any reason for why this occurred? No. However "6" was always a possibility to have been chosen at random.

It had to exist as a possibility, not a probability. The probability doesn't have to be 0 or non-zero. The probability simply doesn't exist, because it can't be expressed.


And you misunderstand my question: did something cause your god? Assuming your answer is "no," why isn't it subject to causality?

Because without a first cause there is an infinite regression of necessary causes. An infinite regression of necessary causes presupposes its own contingent existence with itself. An eternal first cause is mathematically sound and logically coherent. In the OP I had mentioned that everything either originated from absolutely nothing or from some eternal cause to avoid the infinite regression.

Your first cause isn't subject to causality, then. But you said in your OP that that's illogical. How do you square those two ideas?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:15:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This... AGAIN???

How many times has this been refuted in the past 6-months?

There is NO EVIDENCE for an intelligent agent over-seeing the universe or big-bang.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire