The Big Bang, Evolution, Creation, Life etc.

[idav]

If something never began to exist, how can there be moments leading up to its existence??

Why can't the singularity be the thing that didn't begin to exist or was uncaused? Why throw yet another cause in front of something possibly uncaused? You insist that the universe was caused while granting god an exception to your rule.

 

[Koldo]

Noooo, you are assuming that just because something existed there had to be a POINT at which it BEGAN. That is not the case. The word "existed" only described its timeless state, not past duration leading up to its beginning.

A point at which it began is irrelevant for my argument, so far.
If it existed, then there had to be a point at which it existed.
This point has to be a mark on the time frame.

Apparently you people have a hard time answering questions, because I will ask you the same thing. If something never began to exist, how can there be moments leading up to its existence?? ANSWER THE QUESTION.

If something never began to exist, it never existed.
If something always existed, then it began to exist when time did.

 

[Daviso452]

The analogy has to be logical. How can 0 represent the present moment when the present moment is constantly changing to a different point??

An analogy is substituting reality. The zero in this situation marks the point at which you begin to stand up. Yes, it is constantly changing. But like I said, everything after it is the positive. You begin to stand up: 0. Every moment following that: +.

The singularity was simulatenous with the creation of time. It began to exist at the same point that time began to exist.

I know that you may have already realized this, but I must point out an important semantic. Just remember that the singularity did not "begin" to exist. That would imply a passage of time.

But concerning the origin of the singularity, know one knows for sure. Not yest at least. One theory describes the origin of the singularity through quantum fluctuation. This is when matter appears into existence along with a counterpart anti-matter. Because the net mass of the two is zero, they do not break the laws of conservation of mass and energy. However, there are many other ideas.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You haven't offered any juice my friend. All you did was play semantics.

Semantics refers to meaning. As we're communicating via written words, meaning is conferred through language. If you are making conclusions through improper use of language, then "playing semantics" becomes quite necessary.

You are using verbs which have tense. They require time. You are using words which refer to time (like "before") when time does not exist.

You are basing your argument on physics/cosmology, and then ignoring those same physics.

And finally, just to add additional problems to this whole debate, you are making claims about mathematics and infinity which are both clearly false to anybody who has studied calculus and/or set theory.

With so many contradictions in your argument, and the fact that you seem to be using things in your argument (notions of infinity, mathematics, cosmology) which you don't seem to understand makes it very difficult to discuss.

So, if i have been sitting still in an timeless state, where is the change?

Ignoring the fact that your tense you makes this impossible (the "to sit" is called an infinitive is because it is not "finite," i.e. it is without tense/time), the next question is how is this possible? Let's say it is possible "to sit in a timeless state." All you have done now is assert that something is occuring (an action, or a "sitting") in a "timeless state." However, to assert it is timeless is nothing but this. There is no way that we know of for this to be possible. You're using a cosmological argument based on physics to claim that the universe and time began. Then you describe things which, according to this same theory, can't happen. According to the big bang theory, there was no "before" the big bang. According to physics, one cannot sit in a timeless state.

Ok, and? This doesn't mean that God's nature is changing. It just mean he became temporal, or stepped in to time. For example, God knows that I am sitting here with a discussing these issues on this laptop. In about an hour (or whatever time i get off), he will know that I am NOT discussing these issues on this laptop. That is change. Actions that happens in time, temporal causation.

1) If god's nature is not changing, then what about him is? How is he changing. he can't just be moving through time because (according to you) time requires change.
2) What is the difference beteen temporal causation and atemporal causation?

Lol, so if 1 is the limit, how many numbers are in-between 0 and 1??? Good luck with that one.

Read Cantor's proof. There are more numbers between 0 and 1 then there are rational numbers, even though both sets are infinite. In other words, the infinite set of irrational numbers is greater than the infinite set of rational numbers.

This doesn't change the fact that an infinite number of intervals can sum to a finite point. And it happens all the time, every second of every day.

Zeno's paradox only illustrates the fact that whatever point you arrive, there are still an infinite number of points to go. But this is actually an argument against you POV.

And Zeno's paradox was answered, or at least we now know (and have the mathematical tools to prove it) that an infinite number of points on a number line (whether they represent feet, seconds, inches, etc.) actually can sum to a finite number.

I agree, there was no temporal "before", but there was a "causual" before. Those are two different concepts.

And yet you bring up temporal causation. What is "atemporal causation," how is it possible, and why is it required?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he makes some really good points.
[youtube]aCeSJw3Qzls[/youtube]
mhfm1's Channel - YouTube

 

[gnostic]

You haven't offered any juice my friend. All you did was play semantics.

But that's all you've in the 20 or more replies with this "sit for eternity" scenario - you've used semantic. Talk about not seeing the irony. :biglaugh:

Nothing you have written (to date) have been profound or rational.

 

[Daviso452]

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but he makes some really good points.
[youtube]aCeSJw3Qzls[/youtube]
mhfm1's Channel - YouTube

There are two reasons why I will not watch the video.

1) You are a mormon, who are known to be incredibly more devout in their faith. Because of this, you fall victim to your psychological programming, such as placebo effect, forer effect, and confirmation bias, more so than others. I incredibly doubt that anything presented will be of any logical bases.

2) It is an hour long, and my time is worth more to me than that video.

I may be more inclined to watch, however, if you would give the times of specific points you wish to refer to.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Semantics refers to meaning. As we're communicating via written words, meaning is conferred through language. If you are making conclusions through improper use of language, then "playing semantics" becomes quite necessary.

I was using the word "eternity" to describe a state of timelessness. But its cool though, we are beyond that now.

You are using verbs which have tense. They require time. You are using words which refer to time (like "before") when time does not exist.

Depending on the CONTEXT. You keep taking the words out of context. The word "before" is also defined as "indicating location", and I have said at least four times that there was not a temporal before, but a causal before. That is a big difference and it depends on the context at which you use the word whether or not the word relates to time.

You are basing your argument on physics/cosmology, and then ignoring those same physics.

Both science and philosophy provided evidence for a finite past. All of my arguments have been in line with both. Time had a beginning.

And finally, just to add additional problems to this whole debate, you are making claims about mathematics and infinity which are both clearly false to anybody who has studied calculus and/or set theory.

Clearly false? Not at all. I have said that set theory works on paper, but when you place these axioms in reality, you get contradictory results. For example, it is impossible for someone to have an infinite number of things (marbles, cards, tops). This is impossible. In transfinite-arithimmetic (set theory), the operations of subtraction and division are prohibited, for the simple fact that they lead to contradictions. You can slap the hand of the mathematician and say "you cant do that", but you cant stop a person from subtracting and dividing in reality if that person choose to do so, if it was at all possible. Set theory is something that you do on paper, but it has no actuality in real life. In fact, Hilbert's Hotel is a good paradox of why infinity cant exist, because of the contradictory results. Yeah, we can think of such a thing, but in reality Hilbert's Hotel could never happen. I never said you can't deal with infinity in a calculus class, but in reality, it can't be dealt with.

With so many contradictions in your argument, and the fact that you seem to be using things in your argument (notions of infinity, mathematics, cosmology) which you don't seem to understand makes it very difficult to discuss.

I think you are the one that dont understand infinity and mathematics. If you understood it, you wouldn't be on here arguing in favor of the concept of infinity and thinking that you can use it in reality. As I just mentioned, in set theory you cant even use subtraction or division, because of the contradictory results. So If there is someone that doesn't understand, it isn't me in this case. As far as cosmology is concerned, look, you have two problems. The first problem is, you think time is infinite. I have asked you time and time again to explain how, if time is infinite, could it traverse an infinite number of past points to reach the present moment?? You have yet to answer this, despite the fact that I keep asking. The second problem is, the universe began to exist, as is evident in cosmology. If the universe began to exist, then time and space began to exist. So the cause of the universe could not be spatial or temporal. You have to provide an answer for this, and postulating a natural cause wont get the job done, because any natural phenomenon has to exist in time and space, but time and space is exactly what began to exist. These are two crucial problems that I have yet to see you attempt to answer.

Ignoring the fact that your tense you makes this impossible (the "to sit" is called an infinitive is because it is not "finite," i.e. it is without tense/time), the next question is how is this possible? Let's say it is possible "to sit in a timeless state." All you have done now is assert that something is occuring (an action, or a "sitting") in a "timeless state." However, to assert it is timeless is nothing but this. There is no way that we know of for this to be possible.

Dont know where you are going with this. As complicated as these things are, you are over analyzing the issue even more. I have said, if a man is sitting still in an chair in a timeless state, he never began to sit. So if he never began to sit, there was no moment before his sitting, or no moment after his sitting. Now, what is so hard about this? Just like the example i gave with the wife, if she never stepped foot in China, there was never a moment before she stepped foot in China, and there was never a moment after she stepped foot in China. Its not as if her "not going to China" is an action in time. It never happened, so it is not in time. What is so hard about this?? You would have to hire someone to help you not understand this. All of these word playing games is just a smoke screen, because it doesn't change the fact.

You're using a cosmological argument based on physics to claim that the universe and time began. Then you describe things which, according to this same theory, can't happen.

Of course it cant happen according to science, because it isn't a scientific question. The universe began to exist, when you postulate the cause of the universe, you are leaving science and moving to metaphysics. Now that is a problem for you, because you are obviously a naturalist and any hint of something beyond nature is shaky grounds for you. And since we are speaking of "theories", the big bang theory does indeed predict a beginning of space and time, which is what we are discussing.

According to the big bang theory, there was no "before" the big bang. According to physics, one cannot sit in a timeless state.

You are missing the point. Granted, according to the theory, there was no "before". But this only mean that there was no "before" from a temporal standpoint, because time began to exist according to the theory. But my argument is not suggesting a temporal "before". So the argument is in line with the theory. And second, this is silly reasoning, how can the theory state that something began to exist, but then say that there was nothing before it to give it that beginning??? This only makes sense if the word "before" is not used in the "past" tense, but a "location". So there was no "before" in terms of time, but there was a "before" in terms of a causal agent that didn't exist in time.

1) If god's nature is not changing, then what about him is? How is he changing. he can't just be moving through time because (according to you) time requires change.

Gods nature doesn't change, meaning he cannot lie, he cannot make a mistake, he cannot contradict his own nature. He changes based upon acts in time, since he is now temporal. What this mean is, right now, God knows I am watching tv and typing. An hour from now, God will know I will be doing something else. What he knows now will be different from what he knows later. That is change.

2) What is the difference beteen temporal causation and atemporal causation?

Temporal causation is causation in time. Atemporal causation was a one time event at which causation and time happened at one simultaenous moment, which is exactly what the big bang theory predicts.

Read Cantor's proof. There are more numbers between 0 and 1 then there are rational numbers, even though both sets are infinite. In other words, the infinite set of irrational numbers is greater than the infinite set of rational numbers.

Count all of the numbers in-between 0 and 1 and let me know when you reach 1.

This doesn't change the fact that an infinite number of intervals can sum to a finite point. And it happens all the time, every second of every day.

No it isn't infinite. You cant reach infinity as a limit.

And Zeno's paradox was answered, or at least we now know (and have the mathematical tools to prove it) that an infinite number of points on a number line (whether they represent feet, seconds, inches, etc.) actually can sum to a finite number.

An infinite number of points actually can sum to a finite number?? Wow.

And yet you bring up temporal causation. What is "atemporal causation," how is it possible, and why is it required?

Because you cant have an infinite number of cause and effect relations. This would suggest that time is infinite, which cant be, for reasons I explained. So, there could only be a "first cause", a cause that doesnt depend on anything else for its existence, and a cause that was not bound by time. This is required due to a past eternal, infinite regression, which is absurd.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Temporal causation is causation in time. Atemporal causation was a one time event at which causation and time happened at one simultaenous moment, which is exactly what the big bang theory predicts.

Exactly what academic text(s) can you refer to which state that the big bang theory "predicts" atemporal causation? You are using classical philosophical understanding of causation. There are modern philosophers who would disagree that your conception of causation holds any weight in general. However, the important thing is that this view is a temporal one. If you are going to assert that such a thing as "atemporal causation" exists, then you will have to explain the mechanisms. If causation began with the "big bang" then it did not cause the big bang. And the big bang theory says nothing about "causation" because causation is temporal. The standard (simple) view is that every effect has a cause. However, this argument is based on a linear understanding of events. The big bang theory holds that "before" the universe all that existed was a 0-dimensional point (the "singularity"). What this really means is that we can trace the unfolding of the universe back to (according to the theory) nothingness. All of our understanding of the nature of reality fail here. So why must there be a "cause?" In fact, how can there be one? Cause requires time, which didn't exist.

Both science and philosophy provided evidence for a finite past. All of my arguments have been in line with both. Time had a beginning.

Yes, according to most cosmologists time had a beginning. And so there is no way to speak of anything "before" this begining which has any meaning, as every type of "event," from creation to cause, requires time.

Clearly false? Not at all. I have said that set theory works on paper, but when you place these axioms in reality, you get contradictory results.

So you've said. Can you point to a single modern mathematical text which states that the use of infinity in calculus and set theory "works on paper" but not in reality? And what are you basing your understanding of these subjects on?

For example, it is impossible for someone to have an infinite number of things (marbles, cards, tops).

Thankfully, however, objects aren't the only things which exist in reality. I walk certain distances, I spend time doing things, I hold objects with a certain amount of width, volume, etc. All of these things involve the summation of an infinite number of points to a finite number.

In transfinite-arithimmetic (set theory), the operations of subtraction and division are prohibited, for the simple fact that they lead to contradictions. You can slap the hand of the mathematician and say "you cant do that", but you cant stop a person from subtracting and dividing in reality if that person choose to do so, if it was at all possible.

First, transfinite-arithmetic is most certainly NOT set theory, merely a small part. Second, set arithmetic is not simple addition and subtraction. It's the addition and subtraction of sets, not numbers. Finally, what is "division?" In algebra, it is the number such that if a/b=c, then a=bc. It is the inverse of multiplication. However, this isn't the only definition.

Set theory is something that you do on paper, but it has no actuality in real life.

Calculus and set theory absolutely have "actuality" in real life. The computer you use to get onto the internet, and the internet itself, were built using these tools. You are making claims about what calculus and set theory entail without understanding them. Calculus is built around limits, which involve infinity.Probability, statistics, physics (including the big bang theory), engineering, etc., all use infinity to not only explain reality, but to create things in reality. Without our use of infinity which, according to you, "only works on paper," we wouldn't have the big bang theory. Or physics.

In fact, Hilbert's Hotel is a good paradox of why infinity cant exist, because of the contradictory results. Yeah, we can think of such a thing, but in reality Hilbert's Hotel could never happen.

Zeno's paradox was also thought to be impossible: how could an infinite number of intervals sum to a finite point? Then came calculus, which started to work with an ill-defined solution, until finally about 200 years later mathematicians had a rigorous, well-defined definition which we use today.

I never said you can't deal with infinity in a calculus class, but in reality, it can't be dealt with.

Yes, you said this. But I didn't study calculus because it works on paper. I studied it because it's necessary reality. I can't tell you what 1000-dimensional space looks like, and I can't graph lines and points in this space in the same why I can in 2 or 3 dimensional space, but without the mathicatical analysis which depends on such large dimensions you wouldn't see pictures on your computer. Likewise, any continous function, from the "normal distribution/bell curve" to any function which depends on time requires calculus and it's use of infinity.

I think you are the one that dont understand infinity and mathematics.

And yet when I work with statistics/probability, or fMRI data, ERPs, and in fact just about all the research I do or read, I'm using infinity as it is used in calculus.

As I just mentioned, in set theory you cant even use subtraction or division, because of the contradictory results. So If there is someone that doesn't understand, it isn't me in this case.

Given that 1) you absolutely can subtract in set theory and 2) you haven't said anything about the use of calculus and why it only works on paper and 3) It doesn't seem you realize the difference between addition and subtraction of numbers vs. sets, then I don't think I'm the one whose fundamentally misunderstanding modern mathematics here.

An infinite number of points actually can sum to a finite number?? Wow.

Yes. Look at a calculus textbook.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The first problem is, you think time is infinite.

Wow.

I thought I did. From Professsor Michael Woolfson's Time, Space, Stars, and Man: The Story of the Big Bang (Imperial College Press, 2009): "This observationally-based conclusion has led to the current theory that most, but not all, astronomers accept for the origin of the Universe- that at some point in the past all the energy in the Universe was concentrated at a point, a point with no volume that scientists refer to as a singuilarity. That is a challenging idea. The implication of it is that, at the instant the Universe came into being, space did not exist and time did not exist! Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists. This theory, called the Big Bang thoery, postulates that starting from the singularity the Universe expanded so creating space and time. Like any sensible person you will ask the question, "What was the state of affairs before the Big Bang?", to which you will receive the answer, "There is no such thing as before the Big Bang because time did not exist until the Big Bang occured." You might try again with the question, "Into what did the Universe expand?", to which the answer is, "There was no space for the Universe to expand into since the only space that existed was what it created as it expanded...Remember, once the Universe came into being and began to expand, then it is possible to talk about time" [italics in original, emphases added]. p.66



No I've read enough Stephen Hawking to know his views. From The Nature of Space and Time By Hawking and Penrose (Princeton University Press, 1996): "Indeed, almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." He (and Penrose) have both discussed other possibilities, including the existance of multiple singularities, multiple universes, etc. However, one then leaves the theory of the big bang behind.



I'm not presuming it. That's the theory. And as Woolfson notes, it is hard to understand. The "something" which expanded, this singularity, was nothing. As Paul Lurquin puts it in his book Origins of Life and the Universe (Columbia University Press, 2003), this we are talking about "a universe beginning with a singularity characterized by zero space" So a point of zero space which isn't in space and neither space nor time exist. Norman Glennding titled the first chapter of his book Our Place in the Universe (World Scientific, 2007) "A Day without Yesterday" for a reason: "In an instant of creation about 14 billion years ago the universe burst forth, creating space where there was no space, and time when there was no time."




I'm not arguing that something couldn't have existed prior to the big bang. I'm simply stating what the big bang theory is. According to that theory, the universe began out of nothing, and when it began, space and time began with it.

Actually it's more from statements like "Once again we are in the position that we cannot imagine or understand what this means. Try the following experiement- close your eyes and try to think of nothing- absolutely nothing. You can no more do this than we can properly understand- really understand- a Universe of zero volume in which time did not exists." The reason Professor Woolfson relates thinking of "absolutely nothing" and understanding "before" the big bang is because that is what a singularity is.



It is, however, the big bang theory: "the universe began when both its gravitational energy and kinetic energy were arbitrarily close to zero. It literally began from nothing..." from p. 137 of Silk, J (2006). Infinite Cosmos: Questions from the Frontiers of Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.



The singularity, according to the big bang theory, couldn't have come from anywhere. It is a description, as Silk and Woolfson both point out explicitly, of nothingness. And there was no place for it to come from or time for it to exist in.



That's certainly true. And it is a theory that many posit.

I have asked you time and time again to explain how, if time is infinite, could it traverse an infinite number of past points to reach the present moment?? You have yet to answer this, despite the fact that I keep asking.

Yes it can. And we know this, because time traverses an infinite number of points every second.

The second problem is, the universe began to exist, as is evident in cosmology. If the universe began to exist, then time and space began to exist. So the cause of the universe could not be spatial or temporal.

The notion of "cause" is temporal. You are trying to use temporal reasoning to understand an atemporal reality. You even used the phrase "temporal causation." The problem is, while we understand how things can be "caused" in time, no such definition exists for a reality without time. It's not just that we don't know what such a thing might be, there's no reason to talk about it at all because it is projecting a linear notion of cause and events which exists because of time.

These are two crucial problems that I have yet to see you attempt to answer.

I have. You just didn't accept the answer. The answer is there is no cause, and no reason to assume one. To project our understanding of events and how they unfold (everything requires a cause) onto a fundamentally different reality is simply an error. To then make up a name for this ("atemporal cause") and define it as the cause before time is circular reasoning.

I have said, if a man is sitting still in an chair in a timeless state, he never began to sit. So if he never began to sit, there was no moment before his sitting, or no moment after his sitting. Now, what is so hard about this?

The fact that you are talking about moments "before" and "after" a "timeless state." If there was no moment "after" then he never stopped sitting. Look at your example:

Just like the example i gave with the wife, if she never stepped foot in China, there was never a moment before she stepped foot in China, and there was never a moment after she stepped foot in China.

But your "sitting" individual does stand up. At which point there is a moment that he is no longer sitting. Which means that there is an "after." You are talking about an action and claiming it is timeless. And you seem to be relying on a fundamental misunderstanding of infinity. The idea that if there are an infinite number of moments in time this means anything at all is nonsensical. There are an infinite number of points within every second. Then there is your understanding of time. This idea that a person sitting is "timeless" providing that there is no moment in which they began to sit has no relation to any understanding of time in cosmology/physics. No one can do anything which is "timeless." If god is something beyond are understanding, and we cannot grasp the nature of god's existance, fine. There's nothing in the idea that time began with the universe which states that we can speak of "timeless states" before it.

And second, this is silly reasoning, how can the theory state that something began to exist, but then say that there was nothing before it to give it that beginning???

Because causes are things which happen in our universe, which is one of time. The whole notion rests on time. If time didn't exist, then all of that falls apart.

What this mean is, right now, God knows I am watching tv and typing. An hour from now, God will know I will be doing something else.

God is not omniscient?

Atemporal causation was a one time event at which causation and time happened at one simultaenous moment, which is exactly what the big bang theory predicts.

A cosmological/astrophysical theory cannot predict something that isn't part of cosmology or physics: atemporal causation. You might as well say that the big bang theory predicts Allah. All you are stating is that according to your interpretation (not shared by many or perhaps most cosmologists, and certainly not part of the thoery) the fact that time began with the universe requires a causal explanation without time.

Count all of the numbers in-between 0 and 1 and let me know when you reach 1.

I can't count them. I also can't count all the points within each second. Why? Because there are an infinite number of points within each second. Yet somehow, even though I can't count all these points, seconds pass.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

There are two reasons why I will not watch the video.

1) You are a mormon, who are known to be incredibly more devout in their faith. Because of this, you fall victim to your psychological programming, such as placebo effect, forer effect, and confirmation bias, more so than others. I incredibly doubt that anything presented will be of any logical bases.

2) It is an hour long, and my time is worth more to me than that video.

I may be more inclined to watch, however, if you would give the times of specific points you wish to refer to.

Wow, we can sure see who the open minded people are.

This video is done by a Catholic Priest and he shares some of the results from some of his findings. I recommend at least watching the first 5 to 10 minutes of it, where it talks about evidences of the Old Testament (Coral covered Egyptian chariot wheels found in the Red Sea etc.) If you continue watching the guy goes on in talking about the Big Bang Theory, how it makes no logical sense and goes into further detail describing the attributes of our solar system.

 

[Daviso452]

Wow, we can sure see who the open minded people are.

This video is done by a Catholic Priest and he shares some of the results from some of his findings. I recommend at least watching the first 5 to 10 minutes of it, where it talks about evidences of the Old Testament (Coral covered Egyptian chariot wheels found in the Red Sea etc.) If you continue watching the guy goes on in talking about the Big Bang Theory, how it makes no logical sense and goes into further detail describing the attributes of our solar system.

Mormons are incredibly kind people, but an issue I keep running into with several Mormons (I happen to know quite a few) is that they seem to think the only way to be a good person is through God, and since Mormons are often very kind that that is proof that Mormonism is true.

This veil of ignorance has caused a multitude of faulty arguments that people (not just mormons) that they don't necessarily believe themselves (or at least that is how it appears), but that they have heard and are just using to show faults in science and skeptic arguments.

Finally, I have heard a multitude of arguments saying faults in science, but they are instead beliefs people have that are not actually based on actual fact. One such example is complexity. No matter how difficult it is to think that we came from millions of years of evolution, it is in fact what the evidence supports. Recently I was talking to Call of the Wild (a member on this forum) and said "dog=dog. Dog does not equal anything else," which has nothing to support it. You cannot prove that it cannot happen.

Another, very minor, but still very present belief is that of the origins of the universe. The universe does in fact have a specific age, but it is because prior to the big bang, there was no time. All the matter of the universe was in a singularity, which is infinitely dense with zero volume. There was no space or time for the singularity.

Also, it is in fact possible to create matter without breaking the law of conservation. I learned about this quite recently, actually. Its called quantum fluctuation. What happens is that both a particle and an anti-matter particle are born simultaneously. Together, their net mass is zero, thus preserving the mass of the universe.

I will watch the first five minutes of the video, but please know that I would greatly prefer you just write out the argument. I consider my time too valuable to waste on an hour long video with an argument likely based off of a false assumption of science, which, as I have just demonstrated, many people have done. I am NOT close-minded.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Mormons are incredibly kind people, but an issue I keep running into with several Mormons (I happen to know quite a few) is that they seem to think the only way to be a good person is through God, and since Mormons are often very kind that that is proof that Mormonism is true.

This veil of ignorance has caused a multitude of faulty arguments that people (not just mormons) that they don't necessarily believe themselves (or at least that is how it appears), but that they have heard and are just using to show faults in science and skeptic arguments.

Finally, I have heard a multitude of arguments saying faults in science, but they are instead beliefs people have that are not actually based on actual fact. One such example is complexity. No matter how difficult it is to think that we came from millions of years of evolution, it is in fact what the evidence supports. Recently I was talking to Call of the Wild (a member on this forum) and said "dog=dog. Dog does not equal anything else," which has nothing to support it. You cannot prove that it cannot happen.

Another, very minor, but still very present belief is that of the origins of the universe. The universe does in fact have a specific age, but it is because prior to the big bang, there was no time. All the matter of the universe was in a singularity, which is infinitely dense with zero volume. There was no space or time for the singularity.

Also, it is in fact possible to create matter without breaking the law of conservation. I learned about this quite recently, actually. Its called quantum fluctuation. What happens is that both a particle and an anti-matter particle are born simultaneously. Together, their net mass is zero, thus preserving the mass of the universe.

I will watch the first five minutes of the video, but please know that I would greatly prefer you just write out the argument. I consider my time too valuable to waste on an hour long video with an argument likely based off of a false assumption of science, which, as I have just demonstrated, many people have done. I am NOT close-minded.

Thank you for at least watching the first 5 minutes of it, I would very much like to hear what you have to say about it.

 

[Daviso452]

Criticisms:

Okay, so the rock is real. Perhaps the hebrews found the rock and based a story around it?

So a chariot cannot be on a boat and fall off while crossing? The possibilities are endless.

okay, like 2 minutes of random pictures.

Evolution creates bad people? REALLY pushing me away. So no bad, murderous person in history was ever religious? Wait, I can think of one right now. Osoma Bin Ladin.

We don't have millions of examples because not everything is preserved. Some places have better conditions for fossilization than others.

Um, false. They have not "all been found fake." I don't know of any that are fake. That isn't to say that there aren't, but I trust the scientists who actually study this the most, and they do not say they're fake.

True, it could mean a common designer. Lets see if he as evidence to back it up.

Colin died over a decade ago. A lot has changed. "MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
and also Homo habilis
NatGeo and the Smithsonian are pretty reliable.

Species don't change over a single generation. You take one animal, and over time it changes. After a few million years, you look at the beginning animal and the current animal, they have very distinct differences. Still the same kind (i.e. still a dog, or still a mouse) but a new species. Same thing over hundreds of millions of years, and its a new animal, but same (insert term here), as in still a mammal, or a reptile, or a bird. Think of it like interest. Over time, it adds up.

Fish-bone-cross? So there is no possibility it was for greater structure?

If there were aliens, why would they choose our one planet over the TRILLIONS of other planets and stars? What is so special about us?

When a grenade explodes, does it all go in one direction?

Yes. Our planet is very special for life. Its conditions are very specific for life. and that is why we have not found a single other planet with life on it. However, the Drake equation calculates all the other planets that are like ours and may contain life, and I think the chance is very high.

Does he not know we have evidence of human culture back 10,000 years ago? And so what if calendars only date back 4,000 years? That just means there were no calendars before then.

Population growth:Human Populations
Scroll down a bit until you see the graph.

I have no idea where he is getting a lot of this stuff. He could be pulling it out of his *** for all I know.

Law of entropy:The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible
Closed systems result in loss of heat. Some apply it to closed systems result in chaos. However, earth is not a closed system. We are acted upon by the sun.

The mid oceanic ridge? Like the one with all the lava spewing from it, causing the drifting of the tectonic plates?

Yeah, but dirt doesn't just turn to stone. You need a lot of pressure, caused by the millions of layers stacked on top of it, which stack up over time

By that logic, every river should. However, the tides wash the sediment away. That is why there are no giant buildups.

I'm done with the video. I'm 15 minutes in. I do kind of want to continue to see what other inaccurate statements he makes, but I'd say I've watched enough. Do you still consider me close-minded?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Criticisms:

Okay, so the rock is real. Perhaps the hebrews found the rock and based a story around it?

So a chariot cannot be on a boat and fall off while crossing? The possibilities are endless.

okay, like 2 minutes of random pictures.

Evolution creates bad people? REALLY pushing me away. So no bad, murderous person in history was ever religious? Wait, I can think of one right now. Osoma Bin Ladin.

We don't have millions of examples because not everything is preserved. Some places have better conditions for fossilization than others.

Um, false. They have not "all been found fake." I don't know of any that are fake. That isn't to say that there aren't, but I trust the scientists who actually study this the most, and they do not say they're fake.

True, it could mean a common designer. Lets see if he as evidence to back it up.

Colin died over a decade ago. A lot has changed. "MISSING LINK" FOUND: New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?
and also Homo habilis
NatGeo and the Smithsonian are pretty reliable.

Species don't change over a single generation. You take one animal, and over time it changes. After a few million years, you look at the beginning animal and the current animal, they have very distinct differences. Still the same kind (i.e. still a dog, or still a mouse) but a new species. Same thing over hundreds of millions of years, and its a new animal, but same (insert term here), as in still a mammal, or a reptile, or a bird. Think of it like interest. Over time, it adds up.

Fish-bone-cross? So there is no possibility it was for greater structure?

If there were aliens, why would they choose our one planet over the TRILLIONS of other planets and stars? What is so special about us?

When a grenade explodes, does it all go in one direction?

Yes. Our planet is very special for life. Its conditions are very specific for life. and that is why we have not found a single other planet with life on it. However, the Drake equation calculates all the other planets that are like ours and may contain life, and I think the chance is very high.

Does he not know we have evidence of human culture back 10,000 years ago? And so what if calendars only date back 4,000 years? That just means there were no calendars before then.

Population growth:Human Populations
Scroll down a bit until you see the graph.

I have no idea where he is getting a lot of this stuff. He could be pulling it out of his *** for all I know.

Law of entropy:The entropy of any closed system not in thermal equilibrium almost always increases. Closed systems spontaneously evolve towards thermal equilibrium -- the state of maximum entropy of the system -- in a process known as "thermalization". Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible
Closed systems result in loss of heat. Some apply it to closed systems result in chaos. However, earth is not a closed system. We are acted upon by the sun.

The mid oceanic ridge? Like the one with all the lava spewing from it, causing the drifting of the tectonic plates?

Yeah, but dirt doesn't just turn to stone. You need a lot of pressure, caused by the millions of layers stacked on top of it, which stack up over time

By that logic, every river should. However, the tides wash the sediment away. That is why there are no giant buildups.

I'm done with the video. I'm 15 minutes in. I do kind of want to continue to see what other inaccurate statements he makes, but I'd say I've watched enough. Do you still consider me close-minded?

Like I said I don't believe everything this guy said either, but he did make some good points I thought, but I'm not saying any of that is solid information that you can change your whole life over. Its just a bunch of interesting facts.

Now that you have watched the video I consider you less close-minded than I did before, and I'm sure as I get to know you better things will hopefully progress.

And thank you for your input by the way I was interested in what you had to say.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Exactly what academic text(s) can you refer to which state that the big bang theory "predicts" atemporal causation?

I didn't imply that any textbooks state that the big bang theory predicts atemporal causation. I was implying that according to the theory, time had a beginning, which you agree. Since everything that begins to exist has a cause (and time is not excluded in this premise), we have to postulate a timeless entity that gave time its cause. And at this point, you leave science and go to metaphysics. That is why the "first cause" argument is not a scientific argument, but a philosophical one. Science only confirms that the universe began to exist. The atemporal causation is an argument from philosophy, knowing that the first cause of something cannot itself be that same thing.

You are using classical philosophical understanding of causation. There are modern philosophers who would disagree that your conception of causation holds any weight in general.

As far as what?

However, the important thing is that this view is a temporal one. If you are going to assert that such a thing as "atemporal causation" exists, then you will have to explain the mechanisms.

I already did. I said that God existed in a timeless and changeless state, just like the man sitting still existed in a timeless and changeless state. No moments before or after. That is timeless.

If causation began with the "big bang" then it did not cause the big bang.

Huh? So a man sitting still in a timeless state begins to get up. Isn't the man the cause of himself "getting up", and isn't that also the first cause??? Not sure where you are going with this one.

And the big bang theory says nothing about "causation" because causation is temporal.

Yes it does, it state that our universe began from a singularity point at which it expanded, an even that brought forth space and time at one simultaneous moment. That is an event. That is a cause. Now of course, it doesn't answer the question of "what was the cause", because that question is asking a question that is beyond its domain. It is beyond science. That is why it is said that gravity breaks down at the singularity, because there is nothing there for it to "gravitate". There is no scientific reasoning for this state.

The standard (simple) view is that every effect has a cause. However, this argument is based on a linear understanding of events. The big bang theory holds that "before" the universe all that existed was a 0-dimensional point (the "singularity"). What this really means is that we can trace the unfolding of the universe back to (according to the theory) nothingness. All of our understanding of the nature of reality fail here. So why must there be a "cause?" In fact, how can there be one? Cause requires time, which didn't exist.

You cant be serious. You are saying that the universe can be traced back to "nothingness", yet this same "nothingness" is where the universe comes from, and it still doesn't require a cause?? But to start off you said the universe was an effect, and every effect has a cause. But then you ask "why must there be a cause". First of all, if you are even willing to entertain the idea that the universe came from a state of nothingness, it would become very apparent that you are trying to avoid I.D at all costs, even if it means postulating the impossible. See, this is the problem here. The problem isn't that we dont have philosophical and scientific reasoning to believe in the supernatural. The problem is, people want to avoid this implication and they are willing to believe that something can come from a state of nothingness just to negate the existence of God. This blows my mind. Theism isnt the only belief system that requires faith, obviously, because anyone that can believe that something can come from nothing is exhibiting the epitome of what it means to accept something by faith.

Yes, according to most cosmologists time had a beginning. And so there is no way to speak of anything "before" this begining which has any meaning, as every type of "event," from creation to cause, requires time.

Still using the word "before" in a temporal context instead of the context that i am using it in, huh. Wow

So you've said. Can you point to a single modern mathematical text which states that the use of infinity in calculus and set theory "works on paper" but not in reality? And what are you basing your understanding of these subjects on?

I have already mentioned the Hilberts Hotel paradox which im sure you are familiar with. This paradox shows what kind of absurdities would result if an actual infinite number of things could exist in reality. The "HHP" is just one of many examples of how we can show how infinity is absurd. For example, lets say you have an infinity amount of marbles. I ask for three of your marbles. You give me three. Now how many would I have? I would still have an infinite amount. Now lets say I have an infinite amount of marbles, and you gave me three more. How many would I have? I would have an infinite amount. Now lets say I have an infinite amount of marbles, and i gave you all of the odd numbered marbles, and I kept all of the even numbered marbles. How many would I have, and how many would you have? We would both have the same amount of marbles, despite the fact that I started with an infinite amount and I gave you an infinite amount. So in one case, infinity-3=infinity....in the other case infinity+infinity=infinity. In yet another case, infinity-infinity=infinity. How can infinity-infinity=infinity??? You subtracted the same amount and have the same amount left over. This is absurd, because when you subtract from any amount, you are always supposed to have less than what you had before. These are the kind of absurdities you will run in to if you dealt with infinity in reality. Look up Hilberts Hotel, perfect example

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Thankfully, however, objects aren't the only things which exist in reality. I walk certain distances, I spend time doing things, I hold objects with a certain amount of width, volume, etc. All of these things involve the summation of an infinite number of points to a finite number.

I repeat, you cant arrive at infinity as a destination. No matter where you stop, there will always be an infinite number of points ahead of you.

First, transfinite-arithmetic is most certainly NOT set theory, merely a small part. Second, set arithmetic is not simple addition and subtraction. It's the addition and subtraction of sets, not numbers. Finally, what is "division?" In algebra, it is the number such that if a/b=c, then a=bc. It is the inverse of multiplication. However, this isn't the only definition.

Hilberts Hotel.

Calculus and set theory absolutely have "actuality" in real life. The computer you use to get onto the internet, and the internet itself, were built using these tools. You are making claims about what calculus and set theory entail without understanding them. Calculus is built around limits, which involve infinity.Probability, statistics, physics (including the big bang theory), engineering, etc., all use infinity to not only explain reality, but to create things in reality. Without our use of infinity which, according to you, "only works on paper," we wouldn't have the big bang theory. Or physics.

What i mean is, you cannot reach infinity by succesive addition, or you cant have an actual number of things. Thats ALL i mean. And if time is infinite, that is implying that we reached infinity (the present moment), by succesive addition, which is impossible. Nor could anyone have an infinite number of things in their possesion, which is also impossible. If you take a calculus class or use set theory you will never reach a point where you can say "hey, i've reached infinity", or "hey, i have infinity". These are just conceptual tools that can be used on papers, given certain axioms and conventions. When you try to use these concepts in reality, you will get contradictory results as the HHP indicates.

Zeno's paradox was also thought to be impossible: how could an infinite number of intervals sum to a finite point? Then came calculus, which started to work with an ill-defined solution, until finally about 200 years later mathematicians had a rigorous, well-defined definition which we use today.

Yes, you said this. But I didn't study calculus because it works on paper. I studied it because it's necessary reality. I can't tell you what 1000-dimensional space looks like, and I can't graph lines and points in this space in the same why I can in 2 or 3 dimensional space, but without the mathicatical analysis which depends on such large dimensions you wouldn't see pictures on your computer. Likewise, any continous function, from the "normal distribution/bell curve" to any function which depends on time requires calculus and it's use of infinity.

Show me how calculus or set theory can solve the problem of Hilberts Paradox, please, I am begging you.

Given that 1) you absolutely can subtract in set theory and 2) you haven't said anything about the use of calculus and why it only works on paper and 3) It doesn't seem you realize the difference between addition and subtraction of numbers vs. sets, then I don't think I'm the one whose fundamentally misunderstanding modern mathematics here.

Lets, say, I have an infinite set of 100 dollar bills. I can give everyone in the world 100,00000000000000000000 dollars each, and STILL have an infinite set. This is absurd. This exactly why infinite cant exist in reality. No matter how you slice the cake, the results are absurd.

 

[PolyHedral]

Since everything that begins to exist has a cause (and time is not excluded in this premise)

Demonstrate this.

Huh? So a man sitting still in a timeless state begins to get up. Isn't the man the cause of himself "getting up", and isn't that also the first cause???

It he begins to get up, it was never timeless to begin with.

But to start off you said the universe was an effect, and every effect has a cause.

Apart from the quantum ones.

The problem isn't that we dont have philosophical and scientific reasoning to believe in the supernatural. The problem is, people want to avoid this implication and they are willing to believe that something can come from a state of nothingness...

The only objection you've made to say that something cannot come from a singularity (which is not nothing) is your intuition. Your intuition only makes sense hundreds of thousands of years after the Big Bang, let alone one second after it, let alone at the exact moment.

How can infinity-infinity=infinity??? You subtracted the same amount and have the same amount left over. This is absurd, because when you subtract from any amount, you are always supposed to have less than what you had before.

Only when dealing with finite quantities. The even numbers are the same size as the integers because that's how infinities work. Hilbert cares not for your silly concept of "absurdity".

I repeat, you cant arrive at infinity as a destination. No matter where you stop, there will always be an infinite number of points ahead of you.

And so, logically, you can't move anywhere, since you'd have to move through an infinite number of points to get there.
...Except not. I could show you the math, but you most likely wouldn't follow it.

And if time is infinite, that is implying that we reached infinity (the present moment), by succesive addition, which is impossible.

It's only impossible to reach an infinity if you're limited to a finite number of additions. Infinite time would be, oddly enough, an infinite number of additions.

If you take a calculus class or use set theory you will never reach a point where you can say "hey, i've reached infinity", or "hey, i have infinity". These are just conceptual tools that can be used on papers, given certain axioms and conventions. When you try to use these concepts in reality, you will get contradictory results as the HHP indicates.

The results you get from manipulating infinity are exactly as consistent, and exactly as real as the results you get from manipulating any other structure, normal numbers included.

Show me how calculus or set theory can solve the problem of Hilberts Paradox, please, I am begging you.

It's not a paradox. That's how infinity behaves, and it's perfectly consistent.

Lets, say, I have an infinite set of 100 dollar bills. I can give everyone in the world 100,00000000000000000000 dollars each, and STILL have an infinite set. This is absurd. This exactly why infinite cant exist in reality. No matter how you slice the cake, the results are absurd.

So? If you're baulking at the concept of an infinite number of dollar bills, and then you really won't like Quantum Mechanics. It routinely involves adding up infinities and getting finite answers.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I repeat, you cant arrive at infinity as a destination. No matter where you stop, there will always be an infinite number of points ahead of you.

Do you know what induction is? Or proof by induction? I'm going to give you a simplistic version and an example to show you are wrong here.

Induction is basically as follows: I think something is true. For example, I think that there is no "highest number" or I think that a certain formula (e.g. combinations n!/(n-r)!) will always hold true. The problem is that there are an infinite number of numbers, so how can I know something will always hold true? I show it is true in certain cases, and then I show that you you can arbitrarily pick any numbers you want and plug them into my formula, and it will still work.

[A little more formally: mathematical induction is establishing a statement with logical certainty for an infinite number of cases. Given a statement A, for example, that the formula {n(n+1)/2}^2 is correct for a sum of any series of cubes, I need to show that it holds true both for statements A1, and for any statement Ar (where are is an arbitrary number in the sequence), Ar+1 is also true. For the sum of cubes, this means showing both that the formula holds for 1^3, and that for any no matter how far I extend the sequence, for any arbitrary point, I can always show that the formula will hold for the next point in the sequence]

Here's an informal and simplistic version of an induction-type proof for the existance of an infinite number of points within any second.
I start a hypothetical stop watch. I wish to show that there are an infinite number of points between when I start and the first second. I can stop the stopwatch at 1/2 of a second. I can stop it at 1/3 of a second. At 1/4. In fact, given any integer n, I can stop my theoretical stopwatch at 1/n, and I could have stopped it later (1/n+1). No matter how large n, gets, there is no point at which time stops, and thus no fraction of a second that isn't in the interval. A billionth of a second, a trillionth, it doesn't matter. Time is continous, and thus I can let n grow infinitely large, but I will never get out of that second. However, if I never stop the stopwatch, it will hit one second. So while I can show that there is an infinite number of points within that second, they still sum to 1 second. If they didn't, then we would never reach that second.

Hilberts Hotel.

I don't think you understand Hilbert's purpose or point here.

What i mean is, you cannot reach infinity by succesive addition, or you cant have an actual number of things. Thats ALL i mean. And if time is infinite, that is implying that we reached infinity (the present moment), by succesive addition, which is impossible.

Again, every second we reach a point by an infinite summation of moments (i.e. by "successive addition).

When you try to use these concepts in reality, you will get contradictory results as the HHP indicates.

No, you don't. You just don't understand Hilbert's point. You realize that it is a veridical paradox, right? That means it isn't contradictory, just counter-intuitive.

Show me how calculus or set theory can solve the problem of Hilberts Paradox, please, I am begging you.

There is no contradiction. It just means that infinity plus one is still infinity. Just because you read a summary somewhere of W. L. Craig's argument (or even one of his actual papers) doesn't mean you understand Hilbert's point or the "paradox."

No matter how you slice the cake, the results are absurd.

The results seem absurd. That's why it took so long for mathematicians to be able to address infinite notions, why Cantor's proof was so hard for many to accept. Infinity leads to counter-intuitive results. But the people thought the same thing of negative numbers.

 

[Daviso452]

Like I said I don't believe everything this guy said either, but he did make some good points I thought, but I'm not saying any of that is solid information that you can change your whole life over. Its just a bunch of interesting facts.

Now that you have watched the video I consider you less close-minded than I did before, and I'm sure as I get to know you better things will hopefully progress.

And thank you for your input by the way I was interested in what you had to say.

I honestly saw no good points made. Almost nothing he said was cited and went against the majority of what I have read. Again, please list off the main points you were hoping to make from the video and give the times on the video so I might watch.