1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThere's no claim that anything has "only one possible cause." The reasoning goes like this:
"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 t' spectrum has only possible cause in your
opinion, and you base that upon, what?
Kelly
--We observe a spectrum that exactly matches the prediction that the universe was once a big fireball
--We observe that the same theory that predicts the fireball also predicts the motion of galaxies and the relative abundance of hydrogen and helium in the universe
--We try to think of some other way for than spectrum to get there. We can't think of anything compelling. Can you?
--We try to see what the implications of the existence of this fireball would be. It must have been rapidly expanding, which means that if we extrapolate backwards, everything probably started off from some very dense state, probably a singularity. We really have no idea what this singularity is doing here or why it's blowing up. It's really kind of untidy.
--All our models of the universe break down at a singularity, so we are forced to stop there.
In brief: We can't think of any good reason for the observed spectrum except an expanding fireball, and we can't think of any good reason for an expanding fireball except an exploding singularity. We can't explain the existence of the singularity or why it's exploding, though we would like to. We have no evidence to enable us to explain the root causes of that.
It's like seeing someone shot and watching them keel over and concluding that they probably died because a high-velocity bullet just smashed into their brain. It's possible there's another explanation, sure. Maybe they really died from a heart attack and could have survived the bullet. But it's not likely, and though you can search and search for alternative explanations--maybe the cosmic microwave background is really being emitted by a large transparent sphere encasing the solar system?--the obvious explanation is the most satisfying and the likeliest.
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, I am hypothesizing (not claiming but suggesting a possibility), that time is finite in extent but has no beginning.
But surely it means that time can have no beginning either. Are you saying (once again) that time is neither finite or infinite?
If you are willing to do even the most basic research into mathematics you will find that what I am talking about is called an "open set" in set Theory.
I even gave as an example the set of positive real numbers. They are finite in extent in that they effectively stop at zero (do not go beyond), but they also do not have an edge at Zero in that you can never find a member of the set that is the smallest positive real number (ie no beginning), and there are rules (such as division and addition) which apply to all members of the set. So if we say that any positive real number is 'caused' by the addition of two smaller positive real numbers you would think that if you trace the 'causation' backwards then you will get to a 'first cause' or a positive real number that starts off the chain. But that is not the case. You can follow the chain backwards infinitely without ever getting to or going past zero.
1 edit
Stephen Hawking used "imaginary time" to try to explain his views on the origin of the Big Bang. He however ends up admitting that almost everyone now believes that in real time the universe had a beginning.
I think the idea of indivisible time without a beginning is probably like Hawking's "imaginary time" - which according to Hawkings was "just a proposal". I think he means a metaphysical proposal.
He is quoted by Fred Heerin in Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill. Daystar, 2000) on page 135 as saying:
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang"
Originally posted by jaywillYes. We've been saying that for 5 pages. Time started at the Big Bang. To talk of before, or a cause is just stupid.
Stephen Hawking used "imaginary time" to try to explain his views on the origin of the Big Bang. He however ends up admitting that almost everyone now believes that in real time the universe had a beginning.
I think the idea of indivisible time without a beginning is probably like Hawking's "imaginary time" - which according to Hawkings was "just a prop ...[text shortened]... e now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang"[/b]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So if we say that any positive real number is 'caused' by the addition of two smaller positive real numbers you would think that if you trace the 'causation' backwards then you will get to a 'first cause' or a positive real number that starts off the chain. But that is not the case. You can follow the chain backwards infinitely without ever getting to or going past zero.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The question I have is this saying that Zero does not exist?
Or is it simply saying that if you WANT to, you can kind of conceptualize some not too practical but plausible way to AVOID arriving at Zero.
It is one thing to say that Zero does not exist. It is another to say that one can get closer and closer and closer and closer to Zero without ever hitting it.
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnz+++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes. We've been saying that for 5 pages. Time started at the Big Bang. To talk of before, or a cause is just stupid.
Yes. We've been saying that for 5 page
Time started at the Big Bang. To talk of before, or a cause is just stupid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't know if "stupid" is the word. It could just reveal our limitations of conceptualization.
As much as we'd like to know and understand everything, we just don't.
Perhaps there is a Being who does understand everything. Why should we resent that of that Being's capabilities, I have never been able to derive from an athiest.
I mean why should I be distrustful or resentful, on general principle, that there could be and unlimited Mind Who's powers and wisdom and knowledge are infinite?
Why should a red flag pop up in my head "Danger, Danger, God ... Danger, Danger, God ...!"
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillJust because you can conceptualize Zero doesn't make it exist either.
The question I have is this saying that Zero does not exist?
Or is it simply saying that if you WANT to, you can kind of conceptualize some not too practical but plausible way to AVOID arriving at Zero.
It is one thing to say that Zero does not exist. It is another to say that one can get closer and closer and closer and closer to Zero without ever hitting it.
I am hypothesizing that that time could be such that it does not include its minimum just as the set of positive real numbers do not. I am not saying that I have proved that time does not include its minimum but only that such a view would be possible based on the knowledge we have today and in such a view one could have a universe where every event is caused by a prior event yet time is not infinite in extent in the past ie it has a minimum (thought the minimum itself is not part of time or existence).
The claim of the thread was that if every event is caused by a prior cause then time is either infinite or there was a first cause (uncaused cause). I am saying that that conclusion is false (or at least not a logical deduction) if time is infinitely divisible as there are other perfectly plausible possibilities.
I actually also disagree with the claim that every event is caused as that too has not been backed up with anything other than opinion.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me see if I get this correct.
Just because you can conceptualize Zero doesn't make it exist either.
I am hypothesizing that that time could be such that it does not include its minimum just as the set of positive real numbers do not. I am not saying that I have proved that time does not include its minimum but only that such a view would be possible based on the knowledge we have tod ...[text shortened]... that every event is caused as that too has not been backed up with anything other than opinion.
Possibly, you reason, time like real numbers is infinitely divisible. So you envision an infinite regress of causes which are tinier and tinier and tinier ... on and on into infinity.
So some processes were at work which took a trillionth of a second. Going on, some prior processes were at work which were billions of times smaller in duration than those.
Going back further, even a nano second was composed of trillions of processes which made that nano second appear as a virtual eternity.
Dividing down and down more and more we conceptualize some processes which to 10 to the octillionth power subdivision of a trillionth of a billionth of a millionth of a nano second.
Going on and on and on we have some processes which took even tinier amounts of time. Let's say the laws of physics unleased processes that took 10 x 8,989,898,927,847,984, 892,000,000,000,000,000,999,888,343,954,956E GraspSquillionth of a picoblip.
And going down further some cause only took 30 septtillionth of a microtweed divided by so as to make a shrillionth of a nanoblip appear as 90 octillion centries in length.
Then we go into trillion times this small and physics is still fierying off processes and causes. Then we divide that down to a squillionth of a squillionth of a squillionth of a squillionth of a squillionth of a squillionth of a squillionth of a squillionth down and down down 5,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 times as small and processes are still fierying off causing this and that.
Then we continue dividing time like this for another trillion centries halving the amount of time 80 billion times every second - And still processes are fierying off. And we go on and on and on subdividing time to an infinite sub units ....
Well, I think it is takes a whole lot of faith to believe that that is what went on.
I think it requires less faith to believe "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".
But you know we theist types are naive about these scienctific causes.
Originally posted by jaywillAre you disputing that time or real numbers are infinitely divisible?
Let me see if I get this correct.
Possibly, you reason, time like real numbers is infinitely divisible. So you envision an infinite regress of causes which are tinier and tinier and tinier ... on and on into infinity.
So some processes were at work which took a trillionth of a second. Going on, some prior processes were at work which were billions ...[text shortened]... d the earth".
But you know we theist types are naive about these scienctific causes.[/b]
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Are you disputing that time or real numbers are infinitely divisible?
Nemesio
Are you disputing that time or real numbers are infinitely divisible?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course not.
Conceptually it is logical. Outside the free reign of the imagination it may not have a practical purpose as far reaching as the mental abstraction extends.
Originally posted by jaywillI really like your time units.
GraspSquillionth of a picoblip.
Conceptually it is logical. Outside the free reign of the imagination it may not have a practical purpose as far reaching as the mental abstraction extends.
For real numbers it is an indisputable fact. I do not know if time is infinitely divisible but your failure to comprehend infinity does not in anyway provide evidence to the contrary.
Your long post about how hard it is to keep dividing small numbers with the hope of getting to zero only showed the impossibility of counting to infinity in a finite number of steps. But that is a well known fact of mathematics and nothing new.
What all this really shows is that you, and most other people who try to make a 'first cause' argument, are simply not qualified to make outrageous claims about 'logical conclusions' based on an apparent lack of alternative explanations. There is nothing wrong with you saying "I don't see any other explanation" but it is wrong for you to claim "it is the only logical explanation". In effect, you might have a good hypothesis but it is a long way from being a proof.
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat all this really shows is that you, and most other people who try to make a 'first cause' argument, are simply not qualified to make outrageous claims about 'logical conclusions' based on an apparent lack of alternative explanations. There is nothing wrong with you saying "I don't see any other explanation" but it is wrong for you to claim "it is the only logical explanation". In effect, you might have a good hypothesis but it is a long way from being a proof.
I really like your time units.
[b]Conceptually it is logical. Outside the free reign of the imagination it may not have a practical purpose as far reaching as the mental abstraction extends.
For real numbers it is an indisputable fact. I do not know if time is infinitely divisible but your failure to comprehend infinity does not in anyway provide ...[text shortened]... ". In effect, you might have a good hypothesis but it is a long way from being a proof.[/b]
------
That is the point, you look at every one as not qualified to make any reasoning just because they didn't read as much as you did. I think it is a very big problem, may be someone didn't take a course in logical reasoning, but that doesn't mean he is not able to think and discuss his thoughts. We are not doing acadimic research here, we are sharing our thoughts. If you are going to refuse every single argument because it doesn't follow the acadimic rules of logical reasoning, then it is better to close this forum.
Any way, good luck and have a nice time,
Note: I answered your question about Hadith but I didn't get any replay, that is the field I think myself somehow qualified.
Originally posted by ahosyneyRead my post again carefully. I never said there was anything wrong with discussing ideas related to the beginning of the universe. I even said that there was nothing wrong with anyone, whatever their education from making guesses about what might have occurred or what might be possible based on whatever knowledge they have. However I did say that it is wrong for anyone who doesn't have a basic grounding in logical reasoning and physics and mathematics to be making claims along the lines of the first cause argument which claims to be making a logical conclusion about what is the only possible explanation. If it said the only explanation I can think of then I would have no argument with it at all. Don't forget that the 'first cause' argument is usually put forward as a 'proof' and not as a hypothesis.
That is the point, you look at every one as not qualified to make any reasoning just because they didn't read as much as you did. I think it is a very big problem, may be someone didn't take a course in logical reasoning, but that doesn't mean he is not able to think and discuss his thoughts. We are not doing acadimic research here, we are sharing our thoug ...[text shortened]... sn't follow the acadimic rules of logical reasoning, then it is better to close this forum.
Note: I answered your question about Hadith but I didn't get any replay, that is the field I think myself somehow qualified.
I did read the answer and found it very informative. Thank you.
Originally posted by jaywillNo-one "resents" God (I don't at least). I just don't think he exists.
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes. We've been saying that for 5 page
Time started at the Big Bang. To talk of before, or a cause is just stupid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't know if "stupid" is the word. It could just reveal our limitations of conceptualization.
As much as we'd like to know and understand everything, we just do ...[text shortened]... should a red flag pop up in my head "Danger, Danger, God ... Danger, Danger, God ...!"[/b]