Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
OK
Gloves off. It's possible God created the universe then He Himself ceased to exist leaving just the universe such as it is.
Last edited:
-
Features
Theological Fine Tuning
- Thread starter Cheerful Charlie
- Start date
OK
Gloves off. It's possible God created the universe then He Himself ceased to exist leaving just the universe such as it is.
Lion IRC
Contributor
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2016
- Messages
- 5,138
- Basic Beliefs
- Biblical theist
Isn't this just another way of saying you believe there's no such thing as volition?
Just say so. But please let's not use terms like free will, intent, motive, etc whilst simultaneously defining them as though they were contranyms.
Treedbear
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2016
- Messages
- 2,567
- Location
- out on a limb
- Basic Beliefs
- secular, humanist, agnostic on theism/atheism
I believe volition means the faculty or power of using one's will. But there is no absolutely or perfectly free will. Volition and will are caused. They are the product of whatever mind produced them, and as such are expressions of whatever physical processes make up the brain within which the mind operates. One is free to be what one is and nothing more. The word freedom means nothing if it doesn't define the boundaries within which one operates. In fact these boundaries are the means by which freedom is obtained. God-like freedom perverts a perfectly good concept so that it is meaningless. Sorry chief. But I'm glad I clarified that this is really a discussion about free will. That should simplify things.
You are just rambling, man. You make no sense whatsoever. Sad....says the dude who special pleads the opposite.
And I'm OK with that. If you claim the universe has always existed that's not impossible.
But neither is it impossible that the universe was caused by intent.
No it's not because it's not an additional claim it's one of the types of cause.
If atheology holds that an infinite regression of prior causes are impersonal that's
not a non-sequitur either.
You like throwing around the terms "special pleading" and "non-sequitur" but not all special pleading is necessarily invalid. And not every claim or belief is presented as the coercive logical conclusion inferred from a set of propositions.
If lower case "g" god was created by a Higher Being guess which Being I would worship.
Yes.
Who says God is immutable such that He can't decide to flip the switch?
13.7 billion years ago
What triggered Beethovens to create any given one of his symphonies?
You talk like you've never had a spontaneous moment of creativity where you do something new for the first time.
That's what we're contemplating. Was the light switched on deliberately, accidentally, randomly or has it always been on.
Special pleading
Non-sequitur
There is no point in time at which God did not exist.
Oh dear. See how easy it is to gainsay someone else's brute fact assertion about metaphysics.
How about we define God as past-eternal / uncaused and having volition.
Make up your mind. Has or has not?
Speak for yourself.
Yes we do. Cue the intelligent design argument in ...3,2,1
Hand waving now?
I wouldn't expect to find evidence that such a grand design happened by pure random chance either. Guess why I think that
And
it is possible that the universe just began.
it is possible that the universe has always been.
What the heck do you think that ”it is possible” is a useful tool to say anything useful in this case?
Its only ”possible” to the one that isnt aware of the facts that makes it impossible. So your argument is an argument from ignorance.
One cannot conclude that the cause of the universe, if one exists at all, is either 'personal' or 'impersonal' given only that the universe began to exist and had a cause. It just doesn't follow.
Agreed: many beliefs are irrational.
I suppose you'd worship whatever the Bible told you to: I can't assume you'd reach a rational conclusion.
Isn't God the light switch in your analogy? If he's immutable, how did he change state from off to on? How long was he off for?
Humans have causes for existing, and we are not immutable. Spontaneous moments of creativity are the product of our brains.
How so? You are quite willing to cite the Big Bang theory on the age of the universe but you reject the concept of spacetime? Looks like you're cherry-picking from relativity.
I haven't presented this premise as following from other premises, so one wonders why you think it's a non-sequitur.
Your bald assertion doesn't contradict the conclusion that "there is no point in time at which the universe did not exist".
OK. And?
I stipulated a definition for 'always existed' to clarify what I was claiming. If you don't agree that 'always existed' means the same as 'existed at every point in time' then it would be more useful to offer a correction rather than some irrelevant definition of God.
We don't know either way.
Been there, refuted that. Feel free to try again in a new thread.
Refuting every creationist argument is beyond the scope of this thread.
I wouldn't expect to find evidence that such a grand design happened by pure random chance either. Guess why I think that
In previous posts you've alluded to your own 'Road to Damascus' moment in which you believe you experienced some kind of divine intervention. I'd guess that motivated your conversion to Christianity, which is the predominant religion in Australia and which most Australians are exposed to even if they are raised in secular households.
If that guess isn't far from correct then your attempts at apologetics appear to be nothing more that post hoc rationalisations for your beliefs.
Learner
Veteran Member
Oh stop it Juma, it made sense and its a good response.
from 123
My response to you in 44 was composed alongside the same thoughts I presented in post 42, where I further addressed his reasoning. I thought you would have read that as part of the context to our conversation. So if you still have any questions there see post 42.
But this.......................
I’ll work my way backwards through that section.
Your charge of special pleading is so arbitrary that it defeats itself. To make that charge you have to have already special pleaded your definition…..that the universe/reality is everything…to include God.
But…………
Your definition is NOT the accepted standard and context of this debate. Thus you are the one special pleading an alternate meaning. Let’s reason this through.
Let’s go with your reasoning here that the universe/reality is all there is….to include God, if he exists.
Certainly this…………..
View attachment 12107
………………is all wrong. Those standard distinctions do not exist anymore. Rewrite the textbooks and revise the history. Go fixi wiki. Theism and deism never existed in the first place.
Theism and Deism simply cease to exist. Pantheism is the only game left in town and that would make you an Apanthiest. Or possibly a very confused agnostic.
This………………
Your special pleading makes things far simpler, let’s end all the debate because there is nothing there to debate. So does that sound reasonable to you?
See? You are the one actually special pleading against the standard distinctions commonly accepted throughout history. So to debate me any further would make you delusional, because I can’t really exist in your special world.
So next time you want to engage me, or any other theist, just remember in your world we aren’t really there. Thus I can’t be special pleading anything because I’m not really there in your world. You special pleaded theism out of existence altogether. Should you forget, I’ll remind you.
If theists actually were proclaiming that JUMP (of a conclusion) I would immediately dismiss their reasoning as ridiculous. Theists don’t simply tell you fine-tuning proves God exists. That is way over simplifying the CASE. The FTA is specific only to the conclusion that the best explanation for fine-tuning is design. The FTA says nothing of God. The FTA is but one piece of evidence in a CASE for God’s existence. It’s not the whole case.
My response to you in 44 was composed alongside the same thoughts I presented in post 42, where I further addressed his reasoning. I thought you would have read that as part of the context to our conversation. So if you still have any questions there see post 42.
But this.......................
Wow you just special pleaded theism out of existence. Yes you are the one out of the mainstream here with YOUR special pleading.
I’ll work my way backwards through that section.
Your charge of special pleading is so arbitrary that it defeats itself. To make that charge you have to have already special pleaded your definition…..that the universe/reality is everything…to include God.
But…………
Your definition is NOT the accepted standard and context of this debate. Thus you are the one special pleading an alternate meaning. Let’s reason this through.
Let’s go with your reasoning here that the universe/reality is all there is….to include God, if he exists.
Certainly this…………..
View attachment 12107
………………is all wrong. Those standard distinctions do not exist anymore. Rewrite the textbooks and revise the history. Go fixi wiki. Theism and deism never existed in the first place.
Theism and Deism simply cease to exist. Pantheism is the only game left in town and that would make you an Apanthiest. Or possibly a very confused agnostic.
This………………
….isn’t even debatable any more. How could he be addressing theism? By your special pleading, it doesn’t exist. Only pantheism remains. (Which was my point there.)
Your special pleading makes things far simpler, let’s end all the debate because there is nothing there to debate. So does that sound reasonable to you?
See? You are the one actually special pleading against the standard distinctions commonly accepted throughout history. So to debate me any further would make you delusional, because I can’t really exist in your special world.
So next time you want to engage me, or any other theist, just remember in your world we aren’t really there. Thus I can’t be special pleading anything because I’m not really there in your world. You special pleaded theism out of existence altogether. Should you forget, I’ll remind you.
from 124
Because…………
I addressed this repeatedly. It is irrelevant. The greatness of this theorem is it simplicity. All that matters is the Hubble parameter.
I can’t read if you are trying to deny the theorem
Or
Purpose a “flaw” that has no bearing on the conclusion just to deny the conclusion.
Interesting interpretation. Show me specifically where they said that and how you reach that conclusion.
Make your case as to why this is relevant.
Because…………
I addressed this repeatedly. It is irrelevant. The greatness of this theorem is it simplicity. All that matters is the Hubble parameter.
I can’t read if you are trying to deny the theorem
Or
Purpose a “flaw” that has no bearing on the conclusion just to deny the conclusion.
It's summarised for you in the abstract:
"Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating – or just expanding sufficiently fast – must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime."
https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf
The theorem is based on comoving particles in a Minkowski spacetime manifold, therefore it implicitly assumes that relativity describes the nature of the universe at all points in time, including the Planck epoch.
The Hubble parameter governs the expansion of spacetime. One cannot make conclusions about spacetime during the Planck epoch, in which the laws of relativity break down and the nature of time itself is uncertain.
Again your quote makes my case…………..you’re not understanding what is says.
Both of your concerns are irrelevant to the theorem. I’m not saying they are irrelevant the theorem says they are irrelevant. It even says so right there in what you just quoted.
The theorem says the boundary (past finite universe) exists whether or not relativity holds……”requiring no energy conditions.”
The past boundary exists even though we don’t have the physics to describe it…………….”Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime." We don't know how it is there, but it is there. There is no escape.
The universe is past finite according to the BGV theorem. You have quoted it yourself several times…..thus I quote Vilenkin again……..
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin
Here is a whole lecture from Vilenkin himself….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IJLZO7o4Ak
Here is another article called in the beginning was the beginning where he explains the problem with cyclic models…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning
Read that article this time. He is saying these same things even stronger over a decade latter.
That just means that the theorem does not assume that any given model of spacetime obeys the weak energy condition. It has no bearing on the problem that we cannot apply existing models of spacetime to the Planck epoch.
Sean Carroll has already provided the appropriate response to this tactic:
"On my part, I knew that WLC liked to glide from the BGV theorem (which says that classical spacetime description fails in the past) to the stronger statement that the universe probably had a beginning, even though the latter is not implied by the former. And his favorite weapon is to use quotes from Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV theorem. So I talked to Alan Guth, and he was gracious enough to agree to let me take pictures of him holding up signs with his perspective: namely, that the universe probably didn’t have a beginning, and is very likely eternal. Now, why would an author of the BGV theorem say such a thing? For exactly the reasons I was giving all along: the theorem says nothing definitive about the real universe, it is only a constraint on the classical regime. What matters are models, not theorems, and different scientists will quite naturally have different opinions about which types of models are most likely to prove fruitful once we understand things better. In Vilenkin’s opinion, the best models (in terms of being well-defined and accounting for the data) are ones with a beginning. In Guth’s opinion, the best models are ones that are eternal. And they are welcome to disagree, because we don’t know the answer! Not knowing the answer is perfectly fine. What’s not fine is pretending that we do know the answer, and using that pretend-knowledge to draw premature theological conclusions. (Chatter on Twitter reveals theists scrambling to find previous examples of Guth saying the universe probably had a beginning. As far as I can tell Alan was there talking about inflation beginning, not the universe, which is completely different. But it doesn’t matter; good scientists, it turns out, will actually change their minds in response to thinking about things.)
"...[WLC] will continue to quote Vilenkin saying the universe probably had a beginning, which is fine because that’s what Vilenkin actually thinks. He will not start adding in the fact that Guth thinks the universe is probably eternal, nor will he take the even more respectable position of not relying on people’s individual opinions at all and simply admitting that we don’t have good scientific reasons to think one way or the other at the moment.)"
"...[WLC] will continue to quote Vilenkin saying the universe probably had a beginning, which is fine because that’s what Vilenkin actually thinks. He will not start adding in the fact that Guth thinks the universe is probably eternal, nor will he take the even more respectable position of not relying on people’s individual opinions at all and simply admitting that we don’t have good scientific reasons to think one way or the other at the moment.)"
I concur. But that has nothing to do with the boundary.
Please.
SC’s reference to Guth at that point was a non sequitur and straight out of middle school “my good friend meme.” Guth at the time was trying to avoid the implications of the BGV by reversing the arrow of time. The same thing Sean was attempting to do.
They were trying to develop a model that was exempt from the BGV, it was not denying the BGV. That model is greatly unphysical and does not avoid the beginning of the universe. It generates a new universe EXPANDING in the opposite direction and thus still subject to the BGV theorem, because it not in the past of our universe but a new expanding universe with a beginning. Hence the video link I sent just 13 mins in Vilenkin shows you why it does not work. Nice try…..but no. Watch the video.
ruby sparks
Contributor
Nice try but yes, apparently:
"So, as is often the case when one attempts to discuss scientifically a deep question, the answer is inconclusive. It looks to me that probably the universe had a beginning, but I would not want to place a large bet on the issue."
(Alan Guth)
http://www.counterbalance.org/cq-guth/didth-frame.html
Even without an understanding of all or even much of the physics, one thing is very clear to this amateur. There is a range of expert opinions out there and a range of possibilities, and much we don't know.
As such, relying on or accepting premise 2 of the KCA does not seem to be quite as warranted as you would like it to be.
And I might add that if we move instead to premise 1, you already know that your “my good friend meme” Vilenkin won't be citable.
And you need both premises to get to the bare conclusion.
And that's before the add-ons, about an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe who is a beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful elf.
And that's before you come to fess up about the other add-ons that are part of your personal beliefs. What we might call your secret hideaway house built on sand.
Last edited:
He greatly downplays the probability. As you are for volitional reasons. You simply don't want it to be true. Seriously you are each admitting that is that is where the evidence is leading but you can't follow it there.
Remember my mission there w/ Bigfield was to show Bigfield that it was far more plausible that the universe began to exist. BGV was only part of it. It became the focus but was still only part of it. Mission accomplished. It would be far less plausible to believe that it did not begin.
Again as I pointed out to Bigfield several times The "what" we don't know does not alter the outcome of the BGV.
Good job learning about the KCA. I have been watching your progress.
Of course both premises need to be supported, but I wasn't directtly trying to defend the entiretly of the KCA. Remember Bigfield asked me for evidence that a beginning universe was far more plausible, which only came up because I was challenging CC's OP.
As I stated earlier Vilenkin is trying to reason against the law of causality (premise 1) by playing with language of quantum. But that is yet another context.
Your attempt to disparage me..... by summarizing my intent (selected by you) to be over simplified and absurd, is nothing more than heckling from the cheap seats.
CC set the intent, I responded, others engaged.
So...............................
Quit whining from the bench and get in the game.
ruby sparks
Contributor
And maybe you are inclined to up-play it.
And I'm not sure if meaningful, quantitative probabilities can be assigned for stuff we may not understand.
Either way, it weakens the premise automatically.
Sure. But if there are weaknesses in each step, there is arguably a cumulative effect on the whole argument. And I see weaknesses not only in premises 1 & 2 but the add-ons to come. The argument tries to get to god. I think we would agree on that. I don't see it getting to god.
Last edited:
We're not in a position to say what is "far more plausible".
Such a conclusion certainly doesn't follow from the BGV theorem, which identifies a boundary in inflationary models of spacetime but cannot say anything definitive about the real universe. It certainly does not support the premise that "the universe began to exist".