Checkmate in 3 moves

[JDaniel]

I don’t think you’ll find many folks these days, religious believers or otherwise, that would dispute the existence of something that must have been the first cause of the universe as we know it. The dispute is really only as to the nature of that something.

Sair:

The universe did not have a first cause - it had a Creator. All else has a First Cause.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

What about if you assume Hoyle’s continuously expanding universe.

I know that this has been discarded by Science (if indeed it was ever taken seriously)

But just for the sake of an argument, let us assume it is so. A universe that has always existed, whose history is infinite, in which everything ahs come from something else and nothing needs to come from nothing.

Okay, I know now you can argue with thermodynamics, and that all would have decsended into entropy by now if the universe were infinitely old, but Hoyle thought of that too and suggested that individual bits of the universe need not be as old as the universe as a whole, because the universe is continuously expading. Being infinite in size, it can have been expanding throughout its infinite history without there being a contradiction there. And because it is expanding, the empty spaces in between things are getting bigger too and in those spaces new things are appearing, ie, new material, new stars, new galaxies.

Cirdan:

All of what exists is finite and conditional. Everything in the universe is finite and conditional. One would still be left with the question as to how a finite, conditional universe ever got here - in the first place. No finite, conditional exigency has every shown that it could be unconditionally. Ever. Never. Hypotheticals are fun, but, sooner or later one must come back down to earth.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

1. What is something and when is it absent?

Did you stay up all night to figure out what to write in the above spot?

1. Spinoza, among others, would claim that the actuality is dependent on the potentiality because it is nature that holds that absolute and infinite and this has a chance to be proven mathematically; starting with Cantor attempt; contrary to the current belief that Paul Cohen and Kurt Godel are right.

Actually, it was St. Thomas Aquinas and David Hilbert that showed us - as if we didn’t already know - that there cannot be a actual infinity. Hypothetically, one can postulate whatever one wants, mythical creatures from space, or dragons, or even “infinities.”

1. Time is epiphenomenonal to motion and referencing an immortal, eternal or everlasting present has no equivalence or analogy in reality outside of analytic language (and following the Chomsky’s linguistic insight) in the ability of man to speak with embedded recursion in his language. Otherwise, there is not a synthetic account.

I’m guessing that you also spent a lot of “time” on this absurdity.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I apologize for cutting this down, I wished to focus on the gist of the whole post.

It has been shown logically over the last two centuries that there are actual infinite sets, and some of them can be counted.

That is just dead wrong. No one in their right mind would dream of postulating, as real, an actual infinity. Even in that little box that is supposed to represent the “set,” numbers do not exist infinitely expressed. They are only expressed as a couple of real numbers and commas, followed by some dots and, perhaps, some ridiculous symbol. There’s absolutely nothing actual about that. (Please don’t even try to redeem this postulation; you’ll be even more embarrassed than you are right now.)

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Not necessarily.

So, the Universe is a 4 dimensional manifold:

And it has some particular “shape”… it is finite, yet unbounded. (Much like the surface of a sphere is. A sphere is finite, but if you’re on the surface, you can just keep on going around and around forever.)

CatSci:

The problem with making this hypothetical actual is that if one were to encircle a sphere 360 times, one is going to step on the same spot twice. Oh, I get it, as onwe is encircling such a globe, one’s feet are getting ever and ever smaller.

It has existed for a finite amount of time, but since we’re talking about time, itself, then describing its earliest parts as a “beginning” loses sense.

So, what should it be called? What would one call "second numero uno? What would one call Planck length number one?

What causes the North Pole to begin to exist at the particular place it is on the globe? Isn’t that a nonsensical question? The north pole is just there, for no particular reason (disregarding the magnetic aspect of the poles). You wouldn’t say the Earth “begins to exist” at that point any more than it does at any other point. That’s how the earliest parts of the Universe are. Its just another point on the 4D manifold.

But, you are not depicting our universe as it is understood by that vast majority of physicists. Otherwise, they would have hd no reason to postulate the “multiverse” idea.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, not when we’re talking about time itself. Time can’t begin to begin, because that would require a point in time where time didn’t exist, and that’s contradictory.

That is not contradictory. No: it only requires a point when time didn’t exist. And, it need not be within the manifold of time.

There isn’t even a “before” in which to have the lack of something physical because there is not time in which to have a before.

That is a complaint for the writers of our dictionaries. Just don’t use that word, then, use instead, say, “anticipatory to,” or “that point at which there was no Time.” If your argument is going to rest on the absurd notion that our language defeats us, then you have a very groundless argument indeed.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

If you stick to only natural numbers to correspond to objects, I don’t see how you can have anything BUT an immanent universe.

No transcendence= a pantheistic deity at most, which is not the Christian deity in any sense, as far as I can understand.

But if you want to have correspondence, I suggest you check out tempered tunings on stringed instruments starting in 15th century which were based on irrational numbers. Then there is now about 4 centuries worth of calculus, with real world applications (like flight) that show a lot of correspondence to physics, just not in the same way as you count pencils…

Then there should be no problem at all with you showing us an actual infinity. Not three numbers, some dots and a strange hieroglyph in a little box.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No, not necessarily. Much like the surface of a ball is finite, yet has no beginning.

Then we can conclude that there should be a long string of contradictory states, right? Such as a dog simultaneously dead and alive? Because, as I pointed out earlier, we’re surely going to step in the same footprint twice (or more).

It is relevent, because to have a beginning requires a point of non-existence to begin from.

No so. That is precisely “relevant.”

But that doesn’t matter. My argument stands that time, itself, cannot begin.

You should have stayed up longer, thinking, instead of dropping off to sleep so quickly - before you had the chance of fully thinking it out.

No, time is finite. That’s that.

Well finally, what passes for a little ‘thinking!’

You’re looking at time wrongly. Don’t think of it as the medium through which things pass… just constantly ticking along. Time is another dimension which is a part of the Universe. The Universe “has” time, it doesn’t go through it.

Time is a “dimension” only when man hypothesizes it so. Otherwise, it is merely a measure of motion. Time is correlative with motion. If there were no motion, and no coming to be (which is motion in the wider sense), there would be no time.

There never was nothing!

Either the universe has always existed, i.e., it’s infinite, or, it had a beginning, i.e., it’s finite. Conflating one with the other - to prove some irrational postulation - is, well, obviously rude.

I wouldn’t really call it an “effect”. There’s a point on the surface of a ball that you could nonsensically call the “beginning of the ball”, but that there is a point on the surface is not an effect that needs a cause. The ball simply exists and has the shape that it does. The same goes for the Universe.

If I track mud over every line of a 360 degree sphere, it will come to pass that I’ll be walking in my own footsteps again.

Its totally relevent and a big part of my point. But you can’t make your case without relying on the existence of nothing at some point. If there never was nothing, then your case falls apart. Time didn’t “begin to exist” in a temporal sense like you are ascribing to it.

But, there was a point at which there was “nothing.” Until there was mobile being, there was no Time. Period.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The 4D manifold that is the Universe isn’t dynamic either. Its just has a shape like a ball does.

From all WMAP indications, the universe is flat, not round.

No, “beginning” is a terrible word choice… its like saying the surface of a sphere has a beginning.

As there is no perfect sphere, it does; but that’s beside the point.

god bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Something can be infinite if it simply lacks an end.

Sorry VZ, that is just not so. One can add “further forwards,” and even add “further backs,” to such an “infinity.” That is still an unactualized, or, as Aquinas says, potential infinity. It is an infinity to be (maybe).

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The physical objects which would be parts or members of infinite sums/sets needn’t be actual. It doesn’t follow that something cannot exist because it doesn’t exist.

Perplexity:

In most cases, I’d have to agree with you. But not in the case you are talking about.

All I’m interested in showing is that they’re able to be real (i.e. possible), not that they’re actual.

So, in reply I’d say the pencil example does work: I can easily conceive of God creating an actually infinite amount of pencils. That seems possible to me.

Please use your brain - I know, that was rather presumptuous of me, wasn’t it! That God could create an “infinite amount of pencils” is patently absurd. First, He’d have to displace every other material thing, not only within the universe, but also, outside of it. In fact, it wouldn’t be a “displacement,” per se, it would be the annihilation of all else. I can’t imagine that even God would find a need for an infinity of pencils!

I believe many theists are committed to actual infinites.

Many theists haven’t used their gray matter since they were born.

Many theists conceive of God as in an eternal -]simultaneity/-] **Now]**, for them God doesn’t progressively acquire knowledge: he knows all propositions at once. Since the above illustrates that there are an infinite amount of true propositions, it follows that God knows an infinite amount of propositions at once.

That would be a proper assertion about an Infinite Being.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

jd:

Unexplained assertions are a waste of bandwidth.

Have fun,
CatSci

Likewise are straw-men.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I’ve sufficiently shown a way to model the Universe that doesn’t fit within these.

The problem with your hypothetical universe is that it does not comport with any of the models. From the WMAP website:

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe. (My bolding)

If you really want to see gobbledygook, the last two sentences of the foregoing are exactly that.

Which can be modeled with the surface of a sphere to show how it could be finite, yet unbounded, and thus not have a point that can be meaningly called a beginning. The two-dimensional surface of the sphere represents all four dimensions of spacetime. Latitudinal lines represent the differences in space as you move through time down the longitudinal lines, so its not static in the since of having no change. As you go up a longitudinal line, say northwards, the spatial dimensions get smaller and smaller as you approach the pole. At the point of the pole, there is no north direction anymore (you’ve gone as far back in time as you can and reached a singularity). And its nonsenical to call that pole the “beginning” of the sphere.

You almost impressed me with a cogent paragraph. But, alas, you started wandering all over the place.

The space in front of my nose is not in China… not all space is everywhere.

All space is everywhere. It is a continuous and contiguous volume. You are conflating “space” with “place.”

No, space is finite… its just unbounded. Being unbounded does not mean being infinite like you are using it. You have to think of it as a manifold.

A mobius strip is a finite manifold, even though you could walk in a single direction on the surface forever and ever… but that doesn’t make it “infinite”.

One can walk the surface of a sphere “forever and ever,” and, in time, will walk on (or in) his own footprints. You are right about one thing: this is not what “infinity” means. And space, from man’s POV, is bounded.

And now you’re the one claiming there is a square-triangle. Non-temporal beginning is a contradictory and nonsensical phrase. You should say that time has a finite past (and stop trying to call it a beginning).

That which is finite comes to be. That which comes to be, either by the route of creation, or by causation, has a beginning: the innermost surface of the first instant of the existence of mobile beings. And, yes, these days science tries to make that “point” rounded, not pointed, as it helps the case of -]atheistic/-] pointless scientists.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The truth is the truth, and if someone’s wrong they’re wrong.

And that wrong person just might be you. You are completely extirpating St. Thomas Aquinas, but of course, you knew that.

It is possible to model a finite Universe without a need for a creator or a beginning.

Absolutely irrational.

I don’t need to hide from that fact to maintain a belief in God, and I was raised Catholic.

I’d have to concur with the previous poster.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Exactly, I don’t need metaphysical arguments to underpin my faith. I don’t have a problem that there are alternative explanations of the universe that may stack up to a certain degree and have some credibility. That’s not the same as saying they are true or that I believe them. I am not so insecure in my belief that I must deconstruct everything I don’t believe.

Cirdan: try using your own head, instead of someone else’s. The person you are talking to is one CINO too many. Also, if you don’t fall asleep to quickly, try to understand that being Catholic is not simply going to Church each Sunday. Or, did I touch you on a sore spot?

God bless,
jd

 

[CatSci]

jd

Why are you acting like such a jerk towards me? You’re insulting my intelligence and judging my faith… What did I do to you?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The person you are talking to is one CINO too many.
jd

What does that mean?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Why are you acting like such a jerk towards me? You’re insulting my intelligence and judging my faith… What did I do to you?

Why is it that every one who points out the irrationality of your statements is called a jerk?

I am sure that if i look through this thread i will find out that you too have judged other peoples intelligence and dared to address their impeccable arguments with words like “gibberish” and things of that nature. Wouldn’t that mean that you are also a jerk? As for your faith, “CINO” (Catholic in name only) is not a distortion of your identity, as it is clearly evident that you reject core fundamental teachings of the faith especially in regards to the necessity of Gods causality.

I am not saying that i am better than you (far be it from me to judge my self as better); but facts is facts.

 

[ALotLessThumb]

Did you stay up all night to figure out what to write in the above spot?

This is a philosophy forum where we are trying to discuss philosophical arguments so I am not sure why you are taking it as a personal affront.

Actually, it was St. Thomas Aquinas and David Hilbert that showed us - as if we didn’t already know - that there cannot be a actual infinity. Hypothetically, one can postulate whatever one wants, mythical creatures from space, or dragons, or even “infinities.”

Hilbert’s example that I assume you are referring to is from a paper in 1926, which he recanted in light of Kurt Godel’s work released in 1931. Since you’ve quoted me several times on this point, I’ll say more on it in a following response.

I’m guessing that you also spent a lot of “time” on this absurdity.

God bless,
jd

In post #293, you cite that time relies on motion so I cannot ascertain why you find that absurd. Current linguists generally tend to believe that what separates human communication from animal communication is the embedding of recursion within speech. The unique thing about Indo-European languages, following a rather complex subject-predicate structure, is a greater ability to speak of “past, present, future.” This is not found in all languages, like Sinatic languages or Semitic languages, where there are two main verb aspects: perfective for completed action (with pronominal suffixes) and imperfective for uncompleted action (with pronominal prefixes and suffixes.)

We can be assured that there is an actual past as there is an actual future by other means but we most likely do not capture it within our languages.

Which is why, as Gilson points out, the genius of Saint Thomas was his transfiguration of Aristotle’s Primal Cause into the Christian God “He Who Is” (or following the Jewish tradition, “He Will Be Who He Will Be” This insight of Pure Act going beyond traditional metaphysics is breathtaking (which is best explained in Etienne Gilson’s God and Philosophy.) It’s one reason why Saint Thomas’ work (in addition to [but not eclipsing] his saintliness) is still referred to, whereas Henry of Ghent or Giles of Rome are obscure and distant figures.

It is this labor of Thomas and the Scholastics that still bears us fruit to this day. We were able to get out of the intellectual rut of old archaic thinking, but with that in mind, it doesn’t mean that we haven’t shown concepts actual infinities that make much of the old Aristotelian conceptions invalid or inapplicable.

 

[CatSci]

Why is it that every one who points out the irrationality of your statements is called a jerk?

Its not everyone, its just the one’s who are jerks. There’s only been 2 jerks in this thread imo (not counting me).

And I didn’t say that he was a jerk, I said he was acting like one.

I am sure that if i look through this thread i will find out that you too have judged other peoples intelligence and dared to address their impeccable arguments with words like “gibberish” and things of that nature. Wouldn’t that mean that you are also a jerk?

Well I’m not gonna go back and quote all the bad remarks that JD made, but they’re the same things an arrogant and judgmental condecending ashole would say.

As for your faith, “CINO” (Catholic in name only) is not a distortion of your identity, as it is clearly evident that you reject core fundamental teachings of the faith especially in regards to the necessity of Gods causality.

I am not saying that i am better than you (far be it from me to judge my self as better); but facts is facts.

lol… “clearly evident”. You don’t know anything about me personally. I could be anybody. I could be rollplaying. I could be lying. Or playing Devil’s Advocate. I don’t have to believe something to school you about it.

And you are judging me, so fukc you.

“You’re not really a Catholic” now that has gotta be the most pathetic thing I’ve read all day. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Too bad you had to reply before I had time to address your previous post, we’re not even talking about the topic anymore.