01 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIF this hypothesis of mine is correct (and I cannot be certain that this one is correct -only that there WAS a big-bang), the universe didn’t come “FROM” anything or nothing or even “FROM zilch”! -it simply didn’t “come from”.-----------hamilton--------------------
[b]…The great mystery of existence is whether it's ever possible to get to a point in the causal chain and say " nothing caused this to happen" ( Uncaused Cause) To me the only other option is to get to a point where one can say " this thing is the first cause of everything and has no cause itself because it is eternal and has no beginning" (God -ete ...[text shortened]... didn’t come “FROM” anything or nothing or even “FROM zilch”! -it simply didn’t “come from”.
So how does saying it didn't "come from" different from what I am saying? I am saying that (by implication in your view) the Big Bang has no possible explanation or reason to happen.
Would it be acceptable to say that the universe "didn't come from anything" as opposed to "came from zilch"?? To me these two phrases just mean the same thing. I can understand that saying it "didn't come from anything" might feel a bit less shocking and more palatable but for me the truth would still be the same , namely that the Big Bang came out of nothing at all. The problem is that this sounds bizarre and irrational and unreasonable.
I would ask you to take a little time out here and consider one thing here. The concept of "nothing" is hard and quite shocking. To consider it directly feels strange. My feeling is that everything you are saying implies logically that the universe did indeed come out of nothing but it's just that it's too shocking for you to face (with everything it implies for rationality). However you phrase it changes nothing (LOL) because what we are talking about here is an uncaused , inexplicable event with no preceeding cause. Mysterious eh? Such an event would mean that science would never be able to say " we now know why this happened" because it would be paradoxical. It would be like saying " we have found a green tree that isn't green".
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't patronise nobody. You expressed a specific opinion which is based on a theological basis and I gave you a reply, intending to make clear that preaching regarding this matter is not acceptable due to its total lack of philosophical values.
I would like to debate whether there are only 3 viable options to the problem of existence....
a)an Uncaused event that began for no reason (something from nothing)
b) an infinite regress of causes that stretch back in infinite time with no begining
c) an uncaused Cause that has no beginning (God or related idea about eternity)
I personally can ...[text shortened]... about this stuff 15 years before I was a Christian and my position has changed very little. )
I understand your point regarding your three hypotheses. For the time being we are still deep into the ignorance, but this ignorance has not the same quality with our desperate ignorance before 10.000 years, 2.600 years etc. Step by step we gather information risking our sanity (prevoiously our lifes too!) and we dare to assume differ hypothesies regarding the main issue of the Existence. We don't accept that our world's phenomena are caused by supernatural causes, and I don't see why we must admit that the whole univerce as we imagine and observe it, is derived from a supernatural existence ("god"😉.
Today is widely accepted that there is not any authority due to the fact that our scfientific knowledge always goes through changes and it is constantly refined, whilst on the other hand our other great tool, philosophy, shows that the question regarding the origins of the Existence must not be considered the same as the question regarding the validity/ authenticity and the truth. But surely there is not the slightest possibility to find our way if we choose to lean towards the Great Uknown by means of a "clear, pure and apocalyptical dogma" like a religion.
So, regarding your hypothesies a, b and c: I wish I had your binary-like confidence, but your assumptions are not satisfactory to me. It is clear that we have to try harder -today you cannot fly back home with yours like Da Vinci, you fly with an airbus. The best we can do is to keep up with the trial and error process, therefore my friend KM I will stick with the Science and the Philosophy and I will avoid any kind of authenticity; whenever there will be the slightest evidence that a "religion", no matter which one, is the proper way to handle our ignorance, I will check it out, but right now I assume that the anthropic theory may give step by step a scientifically acceptable reason.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree. You can take my comments to be talking about time being EXCLUSIVLY a property of the universe. My point is that whenever someone suggests that that is the case, you refuse to accept that within that scenario the implication is that talk of 'before the big bang' is meaningless.
If time is a property of the universe (as above) then causality is neccesarily a property too ie to talk about 'what caused the big bang' is meaningless (not unanswered). -----whitey-------------
This argument only works if time and causality are EXCLUSIVELY a property of the universe. Since we do not know if they are or not , the question "what caused the Big Bang" may have meaning it may not.
Also, as long as it remains unknown whether or not time is exclusively a property of the universe, you cannot make any logical claims that are based on the assumption that it is not - without at least including the clause that your logic would only apply under those circumstances.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterHa ha. TOO is criticizing you for preaching what you do not practice and you hate it. I think you are also taking enourmous liberties by claiming to know the mind of Jesus and every 'right thinking Christian' too. But then again, you are probably the only 'right thinking Christian' in existence as it sounds like another name for "True Christian".
And therein lies the departure point between fragmented thinking and intergrated spiritual thinking. Such a philosophy is foreign to any right thinking Christian and Jesus himself would not have agreed with you. Sure you can talk about Jesus but preach? Really? You would dare to preach what you do not practice or believe? Please go away and think about what you are saying.
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterTo my knowledge physics also allows:
I would like to debate whether there are only 3 viable options to the problem of existence....
a)an Uncaused event that began for no reason (something from nothing)
b) an infinite regress of causes that stretch back in infinite time with no begining
c) an uncaused Cause that has no beginning (God or related idea about eternity)
d) an infinite regress of causes that streach back in a finite time with no beggining.
But our previous discussions have shown that you dont have the mathematical background to comprehend that.
I also would ask you to consider rephrasing a) as your claim that 'nothing' preceeded the uncaused event is unfounded. You have already admited that it is not known whether or not time has a begining.
Can you also suggest why a) would be a problem? To my knowledge most of the action in the universe is either uncaused events or events whose cause is unknown and unknowable, why would one special case be more of a problem than all the others?
01 Sep 08
edit: "Can you also suggest why a) would be a problem? To my knowledge most of the action in the universe is either uncaused events or events whose cause is unknown and unknowable, why would one special case be more of a problem than all the others?"
Excellent; now you cleared in full the quality of the situation in front of us.
As my field is not the Maths, could you please swiftly comment or at least let me know whether or not your d issue that you mention is similar to the paradox of Zenon?
01 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister…To me these two phrases just mean the same thing. I can understand that saying it "didn't come from anything" might feel a bit less shocking and more palatable but for me the truth would still be the same , namely that the Big Bang came out of nothing at all. The problem is that this sounds bizarre and IRRATIONAL and unreasonable. …
IF this hypothesis of mine is correct (and I cannot be certain that this one is correct -only that there WAS a big-bang), the universe didn’t come “FROM” anything or nothing or even “FROM zilch”! -it simply didn’t “come from”.-----------hamilton--------------------
So how does saying it didn't "come from" different from what I am saying? I am saying cal. It would be like saying " we have found a green tree that isn't green".
From one of your previous posts, I managed to decipher that what you really mean by “IRRATIONAL” in the above is “both without explanation and purpose”.
I don’t really know if the creation of the whole universe literally has no possible “explanation” although I have been seriously been considering the possibility in this thread. But, I see no logical reason to believe that the creation of the whole universe literally has a “purpose”. Is it beyond you to think that something can have an “explanation” but not “purpose“?
As for the word “bizarre” you used; this is just subjective.
As for the word “unreasonable” you used; you have to clarify exactly what you mean by that to me because I am not sure.
…I would ask you to take a little time out here and consider one thing here. The concept of "nothing" is hard and quite shocking. To consider it directly FEELS strange...… (my emphasis)
How something “FEELS” to me has nothing to do with my analysis here and, in any case, I don’t “feel” anything towards the concept of "nothing" -I am certainly not “shocked“ by it!
01 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…But you seem to be saying that it's absolutely impossible for existence to not exist because it would need "time" to "not exist" in.
Actually, in this case, NEITHER of the options you consider above would “assume that nothingness would just CONTINUE not existing”: -note that for something to “CONTINUE” to exist requires time and there was no “before” the big bang. -----------hamilton----------------
Nothingness cannot exist but it can "not" exist. Nothingness is the absence of an or reason for it to happen. It's an inpenetrable mystery. A bit like God really.
Philosophically and scientifically that would mean that non-existence is impossible and that EXISTENCE must be eternal and everlasting.
…. (my emphasis)
Err…no. It means it is only meaningful for something to exist or not exist at a specific time.
-therefore it means it is only meaningful for “EXISTENCE” to exist or not exist at a specific time! (regardless of how you efine “EXISTENCE” )
…Try thinking about it this way. Let's say that the universe suddenly just disappeared and didn't exist. No time , matter , energy etc. So that there was nothing left at all. Zilcho!!! Would you say that this was scientifically impossible BECAUSE the nothingness would need time in order to not exist in?
(my emphasis)
Firstly, I wouldn’t say it is “scientifically impossible” for there may be aspects of the universe that I am unaware of. Secondly, IF it IS “impossible”, I wouldn’t say it would be impossible “BECAUSE the nothingness would need time in order to not exist in” because, to me, that is a nonsense statement.
…Then turn this around and think about the Big Bang. There was no before (no time) , no matter , no energy etc etc. You see when you say "there was no BEFORE the Big Bang this only goes to confirm how completely EMPTY of anything the nothingness was. No time even. . … (my emphases)
For something to be “EMPTY” of anything, that “EMPTY” something has to exist!
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonErr…no. It means it is only meaningful for something to exist or not exist at a specific time.
[b]…But you seem to be saying that it's absolutely impossible for existence to not exist because it would need "time" to "not exist" in.
Philosophically and scientifically that would mean that non-existence is impossible and that EXISTENCE must be eternal and everlasting.
…. (my emphasis)
Err…no. It means it is only meaningful for somet ...[text shortened]... phases)
For something to be “EMPTY” of anything, that “EMPTY” something has to exist![/b]
-therefore it means it is only meaningful for “EXISTENCE” to exist or not exist at a specific time! (regardless of how you efine “EXISTENCE” ) -----------------hamilton-------------------------
This would imply that you cannot conceive of (or think it's impossible) time itself not existing. Because if time does not exist then nothing else can exist (or not exist) either.
What happens if time itself actually began with the Big Bang , is that meaningful? You have already said that there was no "before" the Big Bang which implies there was no time. No time - no existence then? = NOTHING.
The term "only meaningful" - what's that about? I understand that the words are inadequate and the concepts are bizarre , but are you not willing to work within the constraints of our language?
It's like your point about the word "empty". This is just semantics really. No words or concepts we can use will be adequate because we are talking about stuff that is beyond time and causality on the very fringes of the known universe.
Let's try some simple questions for clarification...
a) Do you believe that time had a beginning?
b) Do you think that nothingness/non-existence is possible?
01 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat he is preaching is a distortion of the true Gospel and not one that I accept. His version is based on perfectionism and the idea that God cannot accept someone who is not perfected. It's an idea I reject outright and I certainly don't preach it.
Ha ha. TOO is criticizing you for preaching what you do not practice and you hate it. I think you are also taking enourmous liberties by claiming to know the mind of Jesus and every 'right thinking Christian' too. But then again, you are probably the only 'right thinking Christian' in existence as it sounds like another name for "True Christian".
What I always put forward regarding God is his incredible grace and compassion for men. He loves those who men despise and judge. Love acceptance and forgiveness. That's what I have preached all along and that's what I practice in my life. If you want to know what I practice and how I do it then I will tell you. ToO will not tell you anything. He has his own version of the Gospel and that's fair enough , but if he wants to preach it to others then he had better tell us if he has tried to live it himself. He does not. He can accuse me of not practicing what HE preaches but don't go twisting it around on to me.
You are right that I do hate what he preaches but not for the reasons you think. I hate it because it's a travesty of the true and living God and because thousands of Christians are bound in fear and darkness because of similar preaching , trying to be perfect enough so that God will accept them somehow without realising they are loved and accepted via grace. It's tragic and I hate it.
As for "right thinking" ask yourself what is it that we need in the world right now? More perfectionism and judgement? or some love, forgiveness and acceptance?
01 Sep 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadBut our previous discussions have shown that you dont have the mathematical background to comprehend that.---WHITEY----------
To my knowledge physics also allows:
d) an infinite regress of causes that streach back in a finite time with no beggining.
But our previous discussions have shown that you dont have the mathematical background to comprehend that.
I also would ask you to consider rephrasing a) as your claim that 'nothing' preceeded the uncaused event is unfounded ...[text shortened]... s unknown and unknowable, why would one special case be more of a problem than all the others?
I kind of got your circle of time idea but I did point out that a circle of time would repeat itself over and over again and so could not be said to have an infinite number of causes. Although it could be said to go round and round a finite set of causes an infinite number of times.
01 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIs it beyond you to think that something can have an “explanation” but not “purpose“? ----hamilton---------------------
[b]…To me these two phrases just mean the same thing. I can understand that saying it "didn't come from anything" might feel a bit less shocking and more palatable but for me the truth would still be the same , namely that the Big Bang came out of nothing at all. The problem is that this sounds bizarre and IRRATIONAL and unreasonable. …
From n’t “feel” anything towards the concept of "nothing" -I am certainly not “shocked“ by it![/b]
Not at all.
Can we go back to basics here?
Would you broadly agree that it's logical to assume that one of the below is true?....
a) existence has always existed and never "didn't" exist (eternity)
b) existence hasn't always existed and had a beginning (something from nothing)
c) existence has a cause but these causes go back infinitely - (there is no first cause but also no "nothing" - infinite regress)
What I am saying here is that existence must either be continuous or discontinuous. Existence either has a beginning or it doesn't.
01 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeister…Err…no. It means it is only meaningful for something to exist or not exist at a specific time.
Err…no. It means it is only meaningful for something to exist or not exist at a specific time.
-therefore it means it is only meaningful for “EXISTENCE” to exist or not exist at a specific time! (regardless of how you efine “EXISTENCE” ) -----------------hamilton-------------------------
This would imply that you cannot conceive of (or think it's at time had a beginning?
b) Do you think that nothingness/non-existence is possible?
-therefore it means it is only meaningful for “EXISTENCE” to exist or not exist at a specific time! (regardless of how you efine “EXISTENCE” ) -----------------hamilton-------------------------
This would imply that you cannot conceive of (or think it's impossible) time itself not existing.….
???
I don’t understand -how do I imply that from what I said there?
Actually I CAN conceive of “time itself not existing” in the sense that I can conceive of there not being a “before” some moment of time.
…Because if time does not exist then nothing else can exist (or not exist) either…
??? I don’t follow your reasoning here.
…What happens if time itself actually began with the Big Bang , is that meaningful? You have already said that there was no "before" the Big Bang which implies there was no time. No time - no existence then? = NOTHING.. . …
“NOTHING” existing when?
…The term "only meaningful" - what's that about? I understand that the words are inadequate and the concepts are bizarre , but are you not willing to work within the constraints of our language? ..…
No. Statements that are supposed to be propositions but are neither true or false are not true propositions but meaningless.
a) Do you believe that time had a beginning? ..…
Yes
…b) Do you think that nothingness/non-existence is possible?.…
Only in the context of a particular point in time and space.
01 Sep 08
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadCan you also suggest why a) would be a problem? To my knowledge most of the action in the universe is either uncaused events or events whose cause is unknown and unknowable, why would one special case be more of a problem than all the others?----whitey-----------
To my knowledge physics also allows:
d) an infinite regress of causes that streach back in a finite time with no beggining.
But our previous discussions have shown that you dont have the mathematical background to comprehend that.
I also would ask you to consider rephrasing a) as your claim that 'nothing' preceeded the uncaused event is unfounded ...[text shortened]... s unknown and unknowable, why would one special case be more of a problem than all the others?
Firstly , we have no idea whether any event in the universe is actually uncaused and there is no proof of this. All we can say is "cause unknown" I know of no proven watertight case of an uncaused event in the universe.
Secondly , the reason a) is a problem is because a) is refering to the very first cause of life and everything which would have to have happened from literally nothing. The events you talk about occurr within a pre-existing universe where something exists so we can easily speculate that there is something we don't know about causing them. In a) however, it is assumed philosophically that nothing exists at all. That's the difference. There can be no cause knowable or unknowable.
The experiments concerning quantum events occurring in "vaccuums" are inconclusive because we can always speculate they are contaminated by unknown factors in the universe. a) assumes that the vaccuum really is a proper "vaccuum" devoid of all existence. By definition that would have to be an uncaused event from literally zilch.
My feeling is that "non-existence" is very likely to just non-exist forever and ever. It makes no sense for existence just to "begin". That's why a) is a problem .