The battle of evolution vs creationism

[ArtieE]

The events which take place in time are coming to past, Artie. If the past is eternal, then the events which lead to your birth is infinite, so there were an infinite number of events which lead to your birth. But one cannot "arrive" at infinity...so therefore your birth would have never came to past if there were an infinite number of events which preceded it.

Your birth could only come to past if there was a boundary...a beginning to the chain at which two points can be referenced. This problem isn't going anywhere, Artie.

"The problem lies in conceiving of "the passage of time" as being a kind of movement. We imagine the present-marker "starting" at the beginning of time, and moving forward into the future. But this picture belies a deep incoherence. It takes a second dimension - time - to move along some dimension. (Think of a graph plotting the change in y-axial distance against the x-axis of time.) But what is the present-marker moving through, as we track its changing temporal location? It can't be moving through the first-order timeline, since that is rather what it is moving along. We need to posit another temporal dimension, a 'meta-time', in which it can traverse first-order 'time'. This leads to infinite regress, and an absurd commitment to infinitely many temporal dimensions.

We must conclude that there is no present-marker, or "moving 'now'". All times are on an equal ontological footing, the same way that all distances are. 'Now' is no more a privileged time (or "one true present") than 'here' is a privileged location or "one true place". The significance is merely indexical. Now is the time I'm at, and here is the place. But there are other places and times, no less real and existing than my own.

To avoid regress, we must recognize that time exists atemporally. Each moment stands in temporal relations (e.g. "before" or "after") to other moments, and indexically represents itself as 'present'. And that's just how it is, eternally. The moments themselves don't change. Rather, "change" is merely the fact of one moment differing from those which stand in the 'before' relation to it"

Philosophy, et cetera: Unchanging Time and the Infinite Past

 

[Parsimony]

Well, that would depend...do you believe in objective moral value?

I would like to say yes, but if I'm honest with myself I'd have to say that I'm on the fence about it. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Well, since the argument is not necessarily based on what we can imagine, the above statement is meaningless.

In such case replace "imagine" with "can be proposed". Omnipotence might be possible, but it also might not be possible. We have no way of testing for the existence of omnipotence.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, anything else is bio-babble.

Should've seen that coming.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

See, thats the point, however many moments there were, it would be INFINITE. So even if you know how many moments there are in a second, or how many moments there are in an hour etc...if the past is eternal, then there would be an infinite number of moments which lead to any event X. So once again, knowing or not knowing how many moments there are in a second is completely meaningless.



Any discription of time you use would not negate the arguments that can be used against actual infinites.

Can you or can you not give me a number?

 

[McBell]

I can't believe I had to prove the obvious here.

I can't believe you think it obvious or that you can prove it.
But you are more than welcome to give it a shot...

I did.

Not in this thread.
Would you please be so kind as to link to where you did?

And you forgot to answer the question:

How many moments have there been from your birth to now?​

 

[McBell]

Don't know, don't care.

This is why you fail.

 

[McBell]

Me knowing or not knowing how many moments there are in second does nothing to refute the argument that I present, so therefore, such a question is completely irrelevant, so much so that I don't even know why I am wasting key strokes on the matter.



Irrelevant. If I asked you how many seconds there are in a minute and if you give the correct answer you will receive a million bucks, would you answer "60", or would you say, "Hmmm, well....I don't know, it depends on how many moments there are in a second."

Bogus. All of this is a diversion to take away the infinite problem. If you people were drowning in the middle of an ocean, the infinity problem is the brick tied to your ankles.

I see you are really whipping that strawmans ***!

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, the arguments that he give in this regard are either true, or false.

Wow, really? Who woulda thunk it, eh? Of course, the question remains whether the argument, true or false, is valid, or pertinent- and Craig's is neither; showing that an infinite collection would be weird (which is an entirely unsurprising result, even to those who believe that infinite collections can exist) does not imply that it is impossible.

Deal with the argument. If you can't offer a meaningful objection to it, then just simply admit that the argument is more plausible than its negations. Spare me the semantic word games.

Calling something "semantic word games" usually just means you don't understand the relevant distinctions; there is no word games here, the point is pretty plain- you can't expect a thought experiment showing that an infinite collection or sequence would be weird to count as proof that they are impossible.

First off, Dr. Craig already offered objections to the Hawking-Hartle model in his public and written work

That's not relevant; the point is that the dichotomy you've offered is false- it is not an "either, or", there could be a third option, such as a past-finite universe that has no transcendent cause. It isn't EITHER the universe is past-eternal OR there was a transcendent cause. Whether Hawking and Hartle's proposal adequately models our universe is entirely beside the point; the point is that a past-finite universe without a transcendent cause is possible/conceivable.

Second, even if the model doesn't have a transcendent first cause, I fail to see how this negates the problem with infinity...

I didn't say it did; I say the way you've set up your problem is flawed because it uses this false dilemma, between an infinite/eternal universe and a transcendent cause, when there are potentially more options than this. However, as I pointed out, since nobody has ever shown any logical or empirical falsity in the notion of an infinite regression of causes, there essentially is no "problem with infinity".

Oh please, I've seen many people object to this. You can do this by using analogies, and if infinite regression wont work in the analogies, then it can't work in reality.

The problem is that, in the thought experiments of those like Craig (such as Hilbert's Hotel), they only "won't work" in the sense that they have bizarre consequences. Unfortunately, as we've noted ad naseum now, being weird or bizarre is not disproof.

You are certainly right, I did, but I don't think he offered a rejection that I can't respond to. But I am not talking to him, I am talking to YOU, but if you think he did offer a good enough objection, then quote me what he said that you think was so spectacular...and we can take it from there.

I'm not sure what "objections" you're talking about; he noted some trivial cases where we successfully complete an infinite amount of tasks, as well as explaining the relevant math. If you're dissatisfied with the explanation (which is standard and accepted fare, being taught in calculus classrooms the world over), I submit that the problem lies on your end.

Ok, so if I told you that you will soon become a millionaire, but the only issue is it will take an infinite number of days for the money to be deposited in your account, and you wait...at what day would you receive the money?

You just said "one moment, then the next, then the next, etc"....so if you waited one day, and then the next, and then the next....what day would you receive the money?

The 15th of May. Maybe you'd like to ask a serious question next.

Then I guess I am seeing things then.

You are seeing things; yourself doing exactly what you claimed to not be doing. How embarrassing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

It's also ironic that you lay the charge of "word games" at my door, since Craig is the one equivocating (which is, of course, par for the course) and playing a switcheroo with the term "absurd"; he is knowingly playing on the difference between the technical and the colloquial usage of this term. This is dishonest (but again, par for the course for Craig).

 

[johnhanks]

Oh and by the way, I never said anything was absurd because I don't understand it.

Call, you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of evolution every time you post on the subject.

 

[cottage]

I can, actually.

Oh! Then please do so?

But I thought energy can neither be created nor destroyed according to the first law of thermodynamics?

That’s correct. We can neither physically create it nor physically destroy it but energy is analyzable in terms of causation, and the principle of which being contingent needn’t obtain at all.

So God can't create a brick wall, with a car which drives into the brick wall? Wow.

That would be a bizarre thing for the Supreme Being to do, but being intentional it couldn’t be classed as an accident, and so I don’t see anything contradictory in him doing what you describe. Whereas the Supreme Being is never surprised or caught off balance, is never forgetful, never confused, never wrong, and certainly not accident prone.

If movement stopped, that doesn't stop time. There would still be seconds, minutes, hours, months, years, etc after it stopped moving. I mean hell, if that is the case then God can stop time...what is so irrational about God stopping all movement and change? Why would that be so difficult. I can certainly conceive of God doing that. That is light work.

If everything is stopped then there is no passage of time as per this definition of time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. And if time is relevant only to the natural world and everything in the natural world is stopped, then there is nothing internal and nothing external by which time can be measured - or even be supposed to have meaning.

We can't conclude it from Psalm 14:1, but we can conclude it from Psalm 18:30

What I’m saying to you is that there is no omnibenevolence on this planet because its inhabitants are subject to unspeakable suffering. That is a fact, and it is a fact whether or not there is any God or any particular gods. So the Bible or any other ancient tome does nothing to make that state of affairs a non-fact.

For the life of me cot, I just don't get it. I don't get how you are arriving at the conclusion that God cannot be the Supreme Creator if the universe exists necessarily because of his eternal will to create it.

But you’re question-begging here by presuming to be the case what cannot be demonstrated necessarily to be the case. But even if causality were necessary, and it isn’t, it still couldn’t be explained how God caused the existence of the world. “God did it” isn’t a causal explanation.
And then there is still the problem of God creating the world ex nihilo; it cannot logically come from nothing, and it cannot come from himself for God is simple, i.e. he has no parts, therefore there is no part of him that can produce or give birth to anything; and by definition the Supreme Being is sufficient in all things and the personification and epitome of perfection, which means he cannot produce, or need, inferior being.

 

[Thief]

This is why you fail.

Need evidence.....can't believe.....
this is how you will fail.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh! Then please do so?

I thought you'd never ask. But before I get in to detail, I am explaining why I think causality is necessary, correct. I don't want to get in to detail just for you to tell me that what I said isn't what you meant, or yadda yadda yadda.

That’s correct. We can neither physically create it nor physically destroy it but energy is analyzable in terms of causation, and the principle of which being contingent needn’t obtain at all.

I didn't get the last part beginning with "and".

That would be a bizarre thing for the Supreme Being to do, but being intentional it couldn’t be classed as an accident, and so I don’t see anything contradictory in him doing what you describe. Whereas the Supreme Being is never surprised or caught off balance, is never forgetful, never confused, never wrong, and certainly not accident prone.

Exactly, so evil and suffering in the world, God is not caught off balance or surprised, or confused about any of it...he is in soveriegn control.

If everything is stopped then there is no passage of time as per this definition of time: The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole. And if time is relevant only to the natural world and everything in the natural world is stopped, then there is nothing internal and nothing external by which time can be measured - or even be supposed to have meaning.

Wait a minute, so you are telling me if all motion in the world stopped right now, and in 13.7 billion years everything resumed, there is no time in between when things stopped and when things resumed?

But regardless of the answer, your point was God cannot stop time...if time can be stopped based on your view on time, then I am not having such a difficult time conceiving God using his power to cease all motion.

What I’m saying to you is that there is no omnibenevolence on this planet because its inhabitants are subject to unspeakable suffering. That is a fact, and it is a fact whether or not there is any God or any particular gods. So the Bible or any other ancient tome does nothing to make that state of affairs a non-fact.

The question is whether or not the suffering is just or unjust. I can think of many reasons why suffering can be considered "just", and if this is even remotely possible, then your argument fails.

But you’re question-begging here by presuming to be the case what cannot be demonstrated necessarily to be the case. But even if causality were necessary, and it isn’t, it still couldn’t be explained how God caused the existence of the world. “God did it” isn’t a causal explanation.

How God did it is completely irrelevant, and I hope that isn't your argument; "Since we are unable to demonstrate how God did it, then God didn't do it". Now of course you are going to say "that isn't what I am saying", but that is what I got out of it. I mean hell, we don't know how life can come from nonliving material, yet some of you are so confident that it did despite your ignorance on the matter...and in fact, that is what YOU believe since you don't believe in ID. So based on your own logic, "Nature did it" isn't a causal explanation either.

And then there is still the problem of God creating the world ex nihilo; it cannot logically come from nothing, and it cannot come from himself for God is simple, i.e. he has no parts, therefore there is no part of him that can produce or give birth to anything; and by definition the Supreme Being is sufficient in all things and the personification and epitome of perfection, which means he cannot produce, or need, inferior being.

If God cannot create the world ex nihilo, then the natural world is all there is. It is eternal. It never began to exist. Time is infinite. So, before you dive in to why God creating the world ex nihilo is so blatantly absurd, I would think you should should dive in to why the alternative position is absurd.

Both can't be absurd. One is true, and the other is false.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Call, you demonstrate that you have zero understanding of evolution every time you post on the subject.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. That is what I do understand.

 

[ArtieE]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. That is what I do understand.

And Dormaalocyon latouri is the ancestor of both dogs and cats. Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is | SciTech | GMA News Online

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

That's not relevant; the point is that the dichotomy you've offered is false- it is not an "either, or", there could be a third option, such as a past-finite universe that has no transcendent cause. It isn't EITHER the universe is past-eternal OR there was a transcendent cause. Whether Hawking and Hartle's proposal adequately models our universe is entirely beside the point; the point is that a past-finite universe without a transcendent cause is possible/conceivable.

As Dr. Craig said, in the Hawking-Hartle model, the universe does BEGIN, it just doesn't begin at a singularity point. Craig has already destroyed this model...it is old news.

I didn't say it did; I say the way you've set up your problem is flawed because it uses this false dilemma, between an infinite/eternal universe and a transcendent cause, when there are potentially more options than this. However, as I pointed out, since nobody has ever shown any logical or empirical falsity in the notion of an infinite regression of causes, there essentially is no "problem with infinity".

Then you should have been able to adequately answere my question.

The problem is that, in the thought experiments of those like Craig (such as Hilbert's Hotel), they only "won't work" in the sense that they have bizarre consequences. Unfortunately, as we've noted ad naseum now, being weird or bizarre is not disproof

Look, if it can't happen in a thought experiment, it can't happen in reality. Hilbert's Hotel can never exist in reality, because if it did, those same absurdities would exist in reality, and absurdities are things that can't exist, because if they could exist, they wouldn't be absurd.

Now you can downplay this all you want. All I want is answers to my questions, and if actual infinites can exist, then I expect an answer.

I'm not sure what "objections" you're talking about; he noted some trivial cases where we successfully complete an infinite amount of tasks, as well as explaining the relevant math.

I want quotes. Neither him nor anyone has ever responded in such a way that made me say "ohhhh, actual infinites CAN exist after all!!!" That has never happened, and it never will, which is why I am trying to see what exactly did he say that was so impressionable.

The 15th of May. Maybe you'd like to ask a serious question next.

Ok, of what year?

I already know you are unable to answer the question. Go back to the drawing board...look at the options, and understand why theism is more plausible naturalism.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you or can you not give me a number?

I don't know how many moments there are in a second. It isn't relevant to the argument...and I can only take so much irrelevance as a diversion...stalling...buying time (no pun intended).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

"The problem lies in conceiving of "the passage of time" as being a kind of movement. We imagine the present-marker "starting" at the beginning of time, and moving forward into the future. But this picture belies a deep incoherence. It takes a second dimension - time - to move along some dimension. (Think of a graph plotting the change in y-axial distance against the x-axis of time.) But what is the present-marker moving through, as we track its changing temporal location? It can't be moving through the first-order timeline, since that is rather what it is moving along. We need to posit another temporal dimension, a 'meta-time', in which it can traverse first-order 'time'. This leads to infinite regress, and an absurd commitment to infinitely many temporal dimensions.

We must conclude that there is no present-marker, or "moving 'now'". All times are on an equal ontological footing, the same way that all distances are. 'Now' is no more a privileged time (or "one true present") than 'here' is a privileged location or "one true place". The significance is merely indexical. Now is the time I'm at, and here is the place. But there are other places and times, no less real and existing than my own.

To avoid regress, we must recognize that time exists atemporally. Each moment stands in temporal relations (e.g. "before" or "after") to other moments, and indexically represents itself as 'present'. And that's just how it is, eternally. The moments themselves don't change. Rather, "change" is merely the fact of one moment differing from those which stand in the 'before' relation to it"

Philosophy, et cetera: Unchanging Time and the Infinite Past

No offense, but the above post is irrelevant. Notice I am using analogies of events (mainly). I already know and even predicted that you people will come at me with all of this abstract stuff involving time. So I will use events in time instead of time itself. And there could not have been an infinite number of EVENTS which lead to your birth. So the problem of infinite regression is not negated.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

And Dormaalocyon latouri is the ancestor of both dogs and cats. Cats and dogs had a common ancestor, and here it is | SciTech | GMA News Online

That is the theory. I want the evidence.

 

[johnhanks]

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. That is what I do understand.

How about posting something that demonstrates an understanding of evolution?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I would like to say yes, but if I'm honest with myself I'd have to say that I'm on the fence about it. Maybe there is, maybe there isn't.

Well...think about it.

In such case replace "imagine" with "can be proposed". Omnipotence might be possible, but it also might not be possible. We have no way of testing for the existence of omnipotence.

We actually do have a way for testing the existence of omnipotence. If it is logically true (the concept is logically coherent), then it must be at least possible...and all necessary truths must be actually true. Necessary truths are not truths that can be possibly false..a necessary truth cannot FAIL to be true...so if it is possible for God to exist, then it is impossible for God to not exist.

Should've seen that coming.

When it stop being true I will stop saying it