01 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayBut those of us which "believe" in the Big Bang do so because it is logically coherent and consistent with all the evidence.
Are you assuming it was not created in an instant? I don't see how you
can claim error when you too are just as in the dark as the next guy
in his beliefs.
Kelly
People who believe in biblical creationism do so in spite of the evidence, or even of basic logic.
01 Jul 07
1 edit
I'm not as interested in infinite regress and first-cause arguments themselves, as I am in the implications of having these very ideas in the first place. It's ludicrous to think that a simple argument like Aquinas' will achieve any kind of consensus among even eminently logical people.
For logic to work it must make sense. But reality doesn't always make sense. Especially on the subatomic level where almost everything is counter-intuitive. In light of that, it's foolish, even disingenuous at times, in my opinion, to live and die by logic alone.
For instance, when self-proclaimed rational freethinkers feign ignorance of the very idea of a creator God--that is obviously a scam. Such people use logic to bury their heads in the sand, and whatever their true motivation may be, it is definitely not seeking the truth. Theirs is a self-crippling pretension; a militaristic intellectualism defending itself against the various implications of one of the most simple questions a child can ask: where did the universe come from?
They say, "I know of no God. Until there is substantial evidence, why should I give this God concept a second thought? God means nothing to me. Go away." Yet existence itself begs the question: was the universe created? Does life have a purpose? Does the universe have a purpose? What is it? Where did it come from? Where is it going? All of which arise out of the simple fact that we exist and nothing more. OBVIOUSLY, then, it is quite disingenuous to claim that there is no reason to think that a Creator might exist, because, of course, there is....
I have nothing against logic, only those who would use it as a rock to hide under.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasparsimony is a better rock, I find.
I'm not as interested in infinite regress and first-cause arguments themselves, as I am in the implications of having these very ideas in the first place. It's ludicrous to think that a simple argument like Aquinas' will achieve any kind of consensus among even eminently logical people.
For logic to work it must make sense. But reality doesn't alway ...[text shortened]... my point.
I have nothing against logic, only those who use it as a rock to hide under.
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou 'believe' the universe has on display what you need to see, to
But those of us which "believe" in the Big Bang do so because it is logically coherent and consistent with all the evidence.
People who believe in biblical creationism do so in spite of the evidence, or even of basic logic.
grasp what occurred billions of years ago; I don't doubt you think it is
matters of logic, but you are building on a house of assumptions.
There is nothing wrong with that if you were honest about it, but you
are near the opinion that your conclusions are matters of facts not
beliefs. At least creationists are honest about what is going on in there
beliefs.
Kelly
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJaythis post is entirely without substance.
You 'believe' the universe has on display what you need to see, to
grasp what occurred billions of years ago; I don't doubt you think it is
matters of logic, but you are building on a house of assumptions.
There is nothing wrong with that if you were honest about it, but you
are near the opinion that your conclusions are matters of facts not
beliefs. At least creationists are honest about what is going on in there
beliefs.
Kelly
You say nothing in it whatsoever. No facts, no figures, you just try to undermine stuff which is beyond any credible doubt with "maybe".
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat fact did you give me to dispute just now, you believe the
this post is entirely without substance.
You say nothing in it whatsoever. No facts, no figures, you just try to undermine stuff which is beyond any credible doubt with "maybe".
universe started with a Big Bang, you think you have evidence that
logically points to that?
Kelly
01 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWe've got whole bodies of theory which point to it. The galaxies are flying apart from each other, heck, we even have the Cosmic Background Radiation, the echo if you will, of the Biggest of Bangs. The data backs it up - this is no mere "opinion", which is really all you appear to have.
What fact did you give me to dispute just now, you believe the
universe started with a Big Bang, you think you have evidence that
logically points to that?
Kelly
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayBuilding a house of assumptions that are examinable and testable make them increasingly less
You 'believe' the universe has on display what you need to see, to
grasp what occurred billions of years ago; I don't doubt you think it is
matters of logic, but you are building on a house of assumptions.
There is nothing wrong with that if you were honest about it, but you
are near the opinion that your conclusions are matters of facts not
beliefs. At least creationists are honest about what is going on in there
beliefs.
Kelly
assumptions and increasingly more substantial.
Just by virtue of the speed of life (a constant), we know that we can see far into the past. That's
not assumption; that's a fact. I don't 'believe' I'm looking into that past when I see something 15
billion light years away. I'm looking at something 15 billion years old.
In order to disbelieve this, you'd have to believe that the speed of light changed. But we have no
reason to believe this and lots of reasons not to believe it. So, while I suppose it's possible that the
speed of light changed, it's also possible that you'll wake up a female tomorrow.
But we both know that it's not going to happen.
Nemesio
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayA particularly compelling bit of evidence for the big bang is the observations of the cosmic microwave background by the COBE satellite. It measured the spectrum of the radiation and its results were in virtually perfect agreement with a scenario in which the universe was once a nearly uniform fireball. Luckily for the physicists, this is exactly the spectrum that the big bang theory was already predicting.
What fact did you give me to dispute just now, you believe the
universe started with a Big Bang, you think you have evidence that
logically points to that?
Kelly
See the graph on the second page of
http://courses.theophys.kth.se/5A1381/reports/axelsson.pdf
which compares the predicted spectrum with the measured one.
If you want to argue that the universe was not, in fact, one big fireball at any point in time, you now have a very hard time of it. How did that perfect spectrum get there? What evidence points to an explanation besides a big bang? And if you can come up with another explanation for the cosmic microwave background, why discard the big bang theory, when it also has the convenient property of explaining completely unrelated things like the redshifting of distant galaxies and the chemical composition of stars?
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf it is all so OBVIOUS then why are you, and others, failing to provide anything more than personal opinion?
Yet existence itself begs the question: was the universe created? Does life have a purpose? Does the universe have a purpose? What is it? Where did it come from? Where is it going? All of which arise out of the simple fact that we exist and nothing more. OBVIOUSLY, then, it is quite disingenuous to claim that there is no reason to think that a Creator might exist, because, of course, there is....
Existence itself does not "beg the question": "was the universe created". It is you that is asking the question and you are yet to give a coherent reason for asking it except for your unfounded belief that the universe is a physical object equivalent to any object within the universe.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by vistesdBetter than your number analogy would be to point out that even though in the set of all positive integers you can add any two integers this does not in any way imply that a similar operation of addition can be applied to the set of all integers as a whole.
But just because we have a noun—“universe”—does not mean there must be a corresponding entity. Universe is the designation for the collectivity (things, forces and their relations), the totality that has no edge. It is not like a jar containing bugs; it is neither a “thing in itself,” nor, as Dr. S. pointed out, a “part” of itself.
Or another example: All numbers have a square root, therefore the set of all numbers has a square root.
The first cause argument is based on a concept "cause" which is based on "time" which is a property of the universe. To apply it to the universe as a whole is nonsensical as the universe is not an entity that moves through time and therefore cannot possibly have a "cause" by the standard definition of the word.
02 Jul 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadBetter than your number analogy would be to point out that even though in the set of all positive integers you can add any two integers this does not in any way imply that a similar operation of addition can be applied to the set of all integers as a whole.
Better than your number analogy would be to point out that even though in the set of all positive integers you can add any two integers this does not in any way imply that a similar operation of addition can be applied to the set of all integers as a whole.
Or another example: All numbers have a square root, therefore the set of all numbers has a square ...[text shortened]... time and therefore cannot possibly have a "cause" by the standard definition of the word.
Excellent! Best analogy yet. (I could’ve saved the bananas, too.) I’m embarrassed that I so over-complicated it. 😳
To apply it to the universe as a whole is nonsensical as the universe is not an entity that moves through time and therefore cannot possibly have a "cause" by the standard definition of the word.
Well, I would say something like:
(1) The universe is not an entity; it is simply a collectivity.
(2) But if the universe can be considered an entity, it is still not an entity that moves through time/space...
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by GregM"If you want to argue that the universe was not, in fact, one big fireball at any point in time, you now have a very hard time of it. How did that perfect spectrum get there?"
A particularly compelling bit of evidence for the big bang is the observations of the cosmic microwave background by the COBE satellite. It measured the spectrum of the radiation and its results were in virtually perfect agreement with a scenario in which the universe was once a nearly uniform fireball. Luckily for the physicists, this is exactly the spectrum ...[text shortened]... unrelated things like the redshifting of distant galaxies and the chemical composition of stars?
That is the point isn't it, how did it get there, you know or at least
think you do. Can you tell me how, I'd like to know? What was it that
blew up, nothing, something, where did the something, or nothing
come from that it could blow up? There a lot of things in the universe
and seeing that 'perfect' spectrum has only possible cause in your
opinion, and you base that upon, what?
Kelly
03 Jul 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYour question is not logically valid, since it presupposes the pre-existence of the universe before the existence of the universe.
"If you want to argue that the universe was not, in fact, one big fireball at any point in time, you now have a very hard time of it. How did that perfect spectrum get there?"
That is the point isn't it, how did it get there, you know or at least
think you do. Can you tell me how, I'd like to know? What was it that
blew up, nothing, something, where di ...[text shortened]... t' spectrum has only possible cause in your
opinion, and you base that upon, what?
Kelly