A Serious Question: Literalism v. Time

Originally posted by frogstomp
by any chance does "special epistemology"=bullcrap ?

Maybe some kind of magic ointment.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
As for what happened just before:

Suppose I am a two-dimensional scientist living on a piece of paper.

Suppose that you, a three-dimensional being, drop a marble covered with paint onto my world and it rolls around, tracing out a path of paint.

I can find the wettest end of the path, and trace it back along its path, following a progression ...[text shortened]... hat God, or any other particular metaphysical phenomenon, did not cause the Big Bang is a fraud.

Nicely put.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
As for what happened just before:

Suppose I am a two-dimensional scientist living on a piece of paper.

Suppose that you, a three-dimensional being, drop a marble covered with paint onto my world and it rolls around, tracing out a path of paint.

I can find the wettest end of the path, and trace it back along its path, following a progression ...[text shortened]... hat God, or any other particular metaphysical phenomenon, did not cause the Big Bang is a fraud.

Nicely done!

Let me ask a question: When a paperland philosopher or theologian speculates about the third dimension (e.g., metaphysics), in the end can anything more be said about such speculation other than that it may or may not be coherent? Does that lead to a coherentist position for epistemology, except for questions that can be decided empirically?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Nothing "blew up". The term "Big Bang" is a pithy one coined by an opponent of the theory; it caught on, but it is not an accurate description of the scientific theory. In essense, all the matter in the universe was at a single point and then the universe started expanding. We do know what expanded i.e. the universe. I'm not going to get into an ent ...[text shortened]... and go to a reputable scientific website or better yet, audit a first year course in astronomy.

Thank you for that no1marauder, glad your back or that you did
not leave.

So we can argue again. 🙂

So there was never a time that matter and energy wasn't here
according to that theory?
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
by any chance does "special epistemology"=bullcrap ?

You are too kind, FS. You should have gone on a page long rant about my arrogance, like sonhouse. Your unprejudiced questioning is duly appreciated... 😏

Originally posted by Halitose
You are too kind, FS. You should have gone on a page long rant about my arrogance, like sonhouse. Your unprejudiced questioning is duly appreciated...

What ever did you mean, though, with "special epistemology"?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What ever did you mean, though, with "special epistemology"?

It merits some critical thought from the Bible literalists as it directly contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. Was that not clear enough in my post?

Originally posted by Halitose
It merits some critical thought from the Bible literalists as it directly contradicts a literal interpretation of the Bible. Was that not clear enough in my post?

Not really.

Are you a Bible literalist?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its arrogant for humans to think they occupy some special place
on earth, like our supposed superiority over animals.
The arrogance you and your christian buddies show is just what is
killing the planet now. Your unspeakable arrogance that humans
are somehow better than the animals, we have been led to beleive
we somehow 'own' the planet, we are the ...[text shortened]... ds us to believe we can crucify the whole
planet in our monstrous sheparding we are doing here?

Its arrogant for humans to think they occupy some special place
on earth, like our supposed superiority over animals.

Uhm... yes... we are not superior to animals. We are only more intelligent; humorous (like you); capable of abstract thought; capable of deciding by will, not instinct; capable of writing and composing music; Yep, we can't be superior to animals.

The arrogance you and your christian buddies show is just what is
killing the planet now.

Care to substantiate. I personally am a great animal lover, and find this very insulting.

Your unspeakable arrogance that humans are somehow better than the animals,

See above...

we have been led to beleive (sic) we somehow 'own' the planet, we are the chief gardners or some such rot,

Take your vendetta to the farmers, I personally own no land.

leads you and your ilk to suck the planet dry of resources your arrogance naturally assumes we own.

Please substantiate this monumental claim. In particular that Christianity is responsible for the planet's demise. As far as I know, the Bible clearly states that man is the steward of the earth and should responsibly take care of it.

Wake up and smell the coffee, take a look at just how well we pinnacles of creation are handling the planet.

You need to wake up from your anti-Christian-prejudiced trance of unsubstantiated mega-claims.

If there is a god grading us you can be sure we are getting an F.

Finally, something we agree on. The rest of your post is based on assumption and therefore merits no answer from me, as I will only be replying in kind.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Not really.

Are you a Bible literalist?

As I said to Scribs, I'm still making up my mind on the issue.

Originally posted by Halitose
As I said to Scribs, I'm still making up my mind on the issue.

Reckon your soul might be at stake right now?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Thank you for that no1marauder, glad your back or that you did
not leave.

So we can argue again. 🙂

So there was never a time that matter and energy wasn't here
according to that theory?
Kelly

I'm not going to "argue" in Spirituality and Debates anymore as I find it frustrating and exhausting; I've recently taken my "debating" to the Chess Forum where discussion may have some informational value for both parties and others.

The theory doesn't speak to a possible time when matter and energy weren't present as there would be no physical trace of such a "time" (I'm not sure if Einsteinian theory would say there is such a concept as time without matter). Remember that scientific theories are descriptions of physical reality based on evidence, but if there was a "time" when no matter existed at all (matter and energy are equivalent: E=mc2) then it would leave no trace. A possible time when there was no matter in the universe is a subject for metaphysics, not science.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not going to "argue" in Spirituality and Debates anymore as I find it frustrating and exhausting; I've recently taken my "debating" to the Chess Forum where discussion may have some informational value for both parties and others.

The theory doesn't speak to a possible time when matter and energy weren't present as there would be n ...[text shortened]... ossible time when there was no matter in the universe is a subject for metaphysics, not science.

We never agree it seems on much, but I'm glad your here.
Kelly

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Reckon your soul might be at stake right now?

It certainly does not say: "For God so loved the world that whosoever is a young earth creationist and a scripture literalist, shall not perish but have everlasting life..."

Originally posted by vistesd
Nicely done!

Let me ask a question: When a paperland philosopher or theologian speculates about the third dimension (e.g., metaphysics), in the end can anything more be said about such speculation other than that it may or may not be coherent? Does that lead to a coherentist position for epistemology, except for questions that can be decided empirically?

I'm not sure. It seems like that would be close to an accurate assessment. Luckily, bbarr is a three-dimensional philosopher like you and me, and he could probably shed some expert light on such a taxonomy.