The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Enai de a lukal]

Right, it does not because as the result of any transcendent cause, but then you are stuck with infinity...because whatever natural cause you can throw out there would itself be the product of a cause, and alllllll the way back to infinity past.

Even if there were such a thing as an "infinity problem", this wouldn't apply to models such as the Hawking-Hartle proposal, as it is a model of a finite past.

finite=\=infinite... pretty simple.

So transcendent cause vs. past-eternal universe is a false dilemma.

But there is no "infinity problem".

I keep telling you people, the infinity problem isn't going ANYWHERE.

I suppose that's true, in a sense; since there isn't any "infinity problem", it isn't going anywhere, since there isn't anything to go anywhere.

No there isnt. If our universe is an effect from any natural entity, then that natural entity is itself part of a prior universe...

Um, no... You don't just get to make s*** up and say that a particular scientific model says that. In the Hawking-Hartle proposal, the universe is self-contained and finite.

so there is still a past-eternal concept going on here.

Right- a model of a finite universe with a particular beginning has "a past-eternal concept going on". Gotcha.

It isn't possible based on philosophical problems.

Lol, "philosophical problems". By this you mean, "it is not consistent with my religious commitments". Unfortunately, even most philosophers reject a "philosophy-first" attitude where metaphysics gets to tell physics how to operate; metaphysics follows physics, not the other way around. And saying that a scientific model which is viable on scientific grounds is wrong due to "philosophical problems" isn't any real objection. And these "philosophical problems" are imaginary anyways- they are only "problems" if you accept this stupid neo-Aristotelean framework that is obsolete (modern physics supplants Aristotelean physics, and without Aristotelean physics, Aristotelean metaphysics is pointless).

Craig has debated physicists from Victor Stenger, to Lawrence Krauss, to Sean Carroll. He destroyed them all, IMO.

But then, you would still say that if Craig had explicitly come out and said "I lost this debate"; as I said, your devotion to Craig is borderline delusional. Now, while Craig has certainly had his way with low hanging fruit like Hitchens and Dawkins, he clearly was in over his head with Carroll; if you watch the video, he does not even attempt to respond to most of Carroll's arguments, and most glaringly, Carroll's corrections of Craig's mistakes RE cosmology and physics. He knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on- he can BS total lay people about physics and cosmology, but he can't BS an actual physicist (at least he's smart enough to not even try).

Your answer was the 14th of May. I don't know how to rebuttal such nonsense.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.

If something cannot happen in a thought analogy, but it can happen in reality, then it should be able to happen in a thought analogy.

This would only be true if there was a necessary and unconditional relation between what we think "cannot happen" in a thought experiment, and how the world is. Essentially, you're arguing that we are infallible. That's ridiculous.

Besides, there isn't anything to say it cannot happen in a thought experiment anyways- the thought experiment merely shows that if it were to happen, it would be weird. Weird=/impossible, remember? And this is supposing that the thought experiment is a legitimate one to begin with- which is highly questionable since, as I noted, a hotel is by nature a finite object. The thought experiment is already set up in a contradictory fashion, and thus can lead to no cogent inferences.

Show give me an example of how you can reach a point that is infinitely long distance away.

That's not a relevant question, and your procedure is still pointless; you keep just asking us whether infinity makes sense to us. The answer is a rather uncontroversial "no, not very much"- but your conclusion, that they cannot therefore exist, is non-sequitur; the world is not constrained by what makes sense to humans. Moreover, an inability to comprehend or even recognize infinite collections in nature, even if one were standing right in front of us, is precisely what you would expect if we have evolved in an environment consisting entirely of finite things- we simply never developed the cognitive machinery to deal with infinities, since we never needed to. This is why this is an entirely irrelevant line of argument- even if we grant your argument, the conclusion still doesn't follow.

In any case, there is no dilemma between an infinite past and a transcendent cause- and a transcendent cause is logically impossible, so we can rule that out right away. So the question is merely between an infinite past and natural cause- and on this question physicists and cosmologists are divided. As you saw in the Craig/Carroll lecture, Alan Guth, one of the authors of the BGV theorem Craig likes to misrepresent, believes the universe is eternal. Vilenkin, one of the other authors of the theorem, appears to believe the universe is not eternal. But unfortunately, either way, theism is out of the running; theism does not offer an explanation at all since IF explanations are propositional AND IF explanations are answers to questions AND IF mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND IF X is the greatest mystery (i.e. theos/God), then X does not explain why anything occurs and is metaphysically vacuous (or, more succinctly, theism is not well defined, it is arbitrary and post hoc as an explanation).

 

[McBell]

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

You might want to pay better attention to the thread and it's various tangents.

 

[McBell]

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).

The problem is that it IS relevant to the argument...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This would only be true if there was a necessary and unconditional relation between what we think "cannot happen" in a thought experiment, and how the world is. Essentially, you're arguing that we are infallible. That's ridiculous.

Two hundred years ago, if you proposed a thought experiment of the things quantum physics describes, people would've told you they cannot happen. And yet, we now know they do. What we think can or cannot happen is not always true- thought experiments can be useful, but they are not actual experiments.

 

[McBell]

I can only speak on what I've seen, and so far, all I've seen is animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. Until there is an exception to this, why should I believe otherwise?

Really?
Only on what you have seen?
So you saw creation?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

... I like to start off neutral ground

This may be the funniest thing I've ever read.

 

[ArtieE]

Show give me an example of how you can reach a point that is infinitely long distance away.

There is no point an infinitely long distance away because wherever it is the distance between here and this point is always finite. Your statement is meaningless.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, if a timeless cause is unnecessary, then the past is eternal and time never began, so therefore, it never happened. Right back to infinite regress.

It cannot be eternal if there is no time. Though you have yet to provide how infinite regression is a problem.

Once again, it was just an analogy. That is not the issue.

Once again you have just admitted that your analogy is flawed and cannot be used as an argument for your point.

What you need to do (and so far have failed to do) is to explain why my analogy doesn't work without using the concept of temporality where it need not be applied. In the analogy there is no time "before" time. You cannot identify a prior point in the analogy, and if time did exist in the analogy, you should be able to identify a prior point. But you can't, can you?

Because the point of your analogy is to provide an example of how a non-temporal being created a temporal reality. And on every level of this your analogy has failed. You have "stated" that the example exists outside of time. Fine. However this means that the integral components necessary for your arguments are invalidated mostly in part to the dependent nature of your point.

That is not even close in comparison with the analogy.

Yes it is.

And this is only true AFTER time began to exist. But we are talking about the origins of time itself, and there ARE no temporal factors in this regard.

Which is why you cannot even begin to make assumptions about it. Anything you say on the matter is either nonesense or baseless claims with nothing to support them.

The girl represents the first CHANGE. In the example, I have been sitting in a chair for eternity. I never moved. I am sitting perfectly still. The concept of temporal becoming does not exist.

Yes it still does. If there was something "before" the change then it must have existed in "time".

Now, if a girl POPS in to being by my side, then EVERYTHING becomes temporal. Time began with the existence of the girl, because that is the first change. But there is no temporal "prior" to the girl. There were no moments which lead to the girl popping in to being. So when the girl pops in to being, time began, and I (the person sitting in the chair) went from an atemporal state, to a temporal state.

Your understanding of time is lacking. The point remains that you cannot be "atemporal" and suddenly "temporal". Even if I gave you this point for the sake of argument how did god "create" time if he did somehow exist in an atemporal state?

Huh?

This just about sums up our back and forth here.

As I said for the third time (and will continue to say as many times as needed), the concept of infinite regression is demonstrably absurd. I can actually demonstrate why the concept is absurd. In order to negate these absurdities, a timeless cause of the universe is necessary. The only way we can have past events which led to the current events of today is for there to have been ONE timeless cause which initiated the entire chain of causation.

Now, if you want to negate the existence of a timeless cause, then you are right back in the absurd land of INFINITE REGRESSION. That isn't going anywhere, because those are the only two options. Either timeless first cause, or infinite regression. If you take away a timeless first cause, you are stuck with infinite regression. But the concept of infinite regression is ABSURD, and absurdities cannot exist in reality. So if it cannot exist in reality, then a timeless cause wins by default. There is nothing illogical about a timeless cause. What you have shown is you just don't get it.

And when I say "you just don't get it", I don't mean it in a sarcastic or arrogant way. The concept can be difficult to grasp, because we are used to things events occuring temporally prior to other events.

But, when it comes to the origin of time and the universe, we cannot look at causation the same way. When I use the analogy such as "Imagine a man sitting in a chair for all eternity, he never moved, etc"...I am purposely setting up the right circumstances which would allow "us" to reach a present moment in time. This is not something that might have happened, or could have happened, this is something that HAD TO HAPPEN necessarily.

You still have not demonstrated why it is impossible. I have been waiting for the answer to that and have requested that you answer it several times. You said it is demonstrable. Demonstrate it. Till then you have no argument (actually even if you do demonstrate it you still have no argument that "god" is the initial cause but I digress and wish you to focus on the first)

So how many moments were there prior to the girl popping next to me?

Its your analogy. How many? An infinite number if I recall.

You are the one with the mistakes buddy, not me.

continue to think this if you must.

T0

Straw man. That isn't the arguement.

How is that a straw man? Please exaplain this? Also explain how it is not a legitimate question?

Straw man.

Do you even know what a straw man is?

Who said he can't experience change?

Because that is an innate property of an atemporal state.

Because infinity cannot be traversed.

Infinity cannot be traversed, once again.

Why? Explain in detail please.

Oh please. There are only two options. Either time is infinite, or it had a beginning. Those are the only two options.

Actually we don't know if those are the only two options. A circular temporal track would technically be infinite with no beginning or end.

Already answered this.

You gave it your best at least.

Oh please. As many times as I have used the word, I don't understand what it means all of a sudden? Tell ya what, get back to me when you can show me that you understand why infinite regression is impossible, so I wont have to educate you on why it is.

I'm not saying it is or isn't possible. I'm asking you why you dismiss it as impossible. We don't know if it is or isn't.

So what makes you think that these several people are so right about what they "point" out to me? Or are you just a follower and going only going in the direction of the majority?

No. Its because I know why they are correct and I am one of them. Your arguments have been flawed from the beginning.

 

[Thief]

You might want to pay better attention to the thread and it's various tangents.

Similar to the science program rerun I was watching this morning?
Did God Create Evolution?

The 'experts' that CAN do the math and the lab experiments say....
The numbers display probability very small that 'natural occurrence' can do evolution.
Professional biologists DO believe in God.
And the chemists is looking for something made of sugar that can reproduce itself.
He is doing that because Rna and Dna are too complex.
'In the beginning' is too quick for such complex 'accidents.

It had to be something simple.

Some lean to God ....some don't.

But for now the complexity in the time span given......leans to God!

 

[McBell]

Similar to the science program rerun I was watching this morning?
Did God Create Evolution?

The 'experts' that CAN do the math and the lab experiments say....
The numbers display probability very small that 'natural occurrence' can do evolution.
Professional biologists DO believe in God.
And the chemists is looking for something made of sugar that can reproduce itself.
He is doing that because Rna and Dna are too complex.
'In the beginning' is too quick for such complex 'accidents.

It had to be something simple.

Some lean to God ....some don't.

But for now the complexity in the time span given......leans to God!

Yes, I am well aware of your "find a gap and fill it with god dogma".

 

[Thief]

Yes, I am well aware of your "find a gap and fill it with god dogma".

Yeah well.....the scientists are doing it too.

 

[McBell]

Yeah well.....the scientists are doing it too.

Really?
What scientist is going out of their way to find gaps in order to put god into them?

 

[Thief]

Really?
What scientist is going out of their way to find gaps in order to put god into them?

See ...Did God Create Evolution....narrated by Morgan Freeman.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I thought you were talking about scientists, and not garbage pop-science journalism created for Nat Geo or the History Channel?

In any case, it would hardly be new for scientists to get in on the fill-gaps-of-science-with-God fun and games; but when they do so, they are not really acting in their capacity as scientists.

 

[johnhanks]

Chimps & humans share 95% (98% by some counts) DNA.

Common designer.

An interesting position to take. According to you, some divine being created "kinds" of animals like cat-kind, dog-kind and the rest of the pages in your pre-schooler's animal picture book. Now, in "cat-kind" the tiger shares 96% of its genes with the house cat. So by your own argument, if tigers and house cats are members of the same kind (whether by common design or common descent), so are humans and chimps.

 

[fantome profane]

Yeah well.....the scientists are doing it too.

If a certain scientist likes to put honey in his tea in the morning, that does not make that beverage more scientific than coffee.

"God of the Gaps" is a non-scientific position, and a logical fallacy. I don't care how many scientists may do this.

 

[cottage]

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.

I’ve been asking repeatedly. I’m simply asking you to demonstrate that the principle of causation is necessary. Why must an A-thing precede a B-thing, or why must a B-thing always follow an A-thing?

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

Energy is physical phenomena and has no necessity.

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.

Yes, that’s absolutely the point. Suffering exists because God means for us to suffer, and in which case he is not all merciful and omnibenevolent.

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?

Yes, yes, precisely that!There is a timeless period, which means there is no continuity in time.

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.

Well, there seems to be confusion here (in red). My argument is that by definition if God is the creator and sustainer of existence then whatever God gives he can take away. He can stop time!

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.

The logical question has nothing whatsoever to do with what is just or moral. Reasons or explanations for suffering do not address the logical argument and hence the contradiction is left soundly in place.

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.

The difference here is that my complete ignorance of why things exist, and are the way they are, is what drives me to seek answers and explore possibilities. By comparison you adamantly presume to know what those answers are, and yet that confidence you display isn’t justified by the answers I'm being given. I’ve been looking back at our discussions and it is very noticeable how the God concept is being watered down and made a slave to the world in order to defend the believer’s sensibilities.

Anyway, the question of ‘how’ is highly relevant. The world cannot come from God himself if the Supreme Being is conceptually perfect and without composition, i.e. having no parts. For God cannot cause something to come from himself that is not wholly God-like, and since there can be no parts to God, then there can be no parts of God that are inferior or contradictory to his essence and perfection. And yet the world is imperfect and contrary to the Deity’s supposed essence and perfection, which informs that no deity is the Supreme 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.

Wrong! Both can be false!

Creation ex nihilo is absurd, utterly! God creating the world from nothing is logically impossible, whilst the world coming into existence uncaused is not. (This is consistent with my view that there is nothing but the world. And I do not commit to ‘There are no things outside of the world’ as even that would seem to imply that there is an ‘outside’.)

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How do you know omnipotence is possible? It only might be possible. It might also be impossible. You have to get past the "might" before you can proceed further with the argument.

Like I keep saying; the concept of a MGB is internally coherent. It doesn't violate any laws of logic, and if you think it does, then enlighten me. If something is internally coherent, then it could happen...it is possible... Until you can identify a logical flaw based on the concept, then you are just merely stating it might be impossible, without any warrant whatsoever.

The existence of unicorns might also possibly be a necessarily true

Is the unicorn a MGB?

It's still a belief then, not a proof.

If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true, regardless of whether we like it or not.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Really?
Only on what you have seen?
So you saw creation?

No, but since creation is not based on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I don't need to see.

 

[McBell]

No, but since creation is not based on the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, I don't need to see.

Do you keep a spread sheet?
I mean, with as much as you move the goal posts....