If God can be 'uncreated & unchanging', why not the universe too?"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Sinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
It is actually not “used all the time in mathematics”.

At least, not with reference to a current point in time. That is, the present.
Click to expand...
The real line is studied all the time in mathematics. there is a huge amount of mathematics which depends on the real line. The real line extends infinitely to the left and to the right. You can easily make a 1-1 correspondence between the points on the real line and the time interval. There is no loss in taking 0 to be a marker for the present time, -1 to represent one hour before the present and +1 to represent one hour in the future. Of course the time interval chosen is arbitrary so that -1 could also be taken to represent one year before the present, etc. The only additional requirement with using the real line to model time, is that with time there is only one direction possible from left to right or the arrow of time points to the future, whereas the tail points to the past. But this is similar to the vector concept which is used all the time in mathematics.
 
PRmerger said:
And where have you critiqued it?

I have no idea what your beliefs are, Tom.

If you do believe in God, then you’ll need to offer some reasons why you do believe this.

If you don’t, then you’ll have to offer some reasons why you don’t believe this.

And you’ve been asked to say, in your own words, why you believe the Kalaam argument to be wanting.
Click to expand...
I have given you a link to a critique in my own words.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14010943&postcount=109
 
PRmerger said:
You don’t believe in a creator, Tom?
Click to expand...
Apparently you want to derail this thread and discuss my personal religious beliefs and not discuss what you had originally asked about which is the flaws in the proofs given above.
Here’s what you asked:
PRmerger said:
Can you give us your synopsis of what the best of these arguments are, and what you find wanting in it?
Click to expand...
I discussed the objections to the Kalam argument and I don’t see any response except that you want to know my religious beliefs, and another poster implies that objections given to his arguments are similar to universes existing inside of black holes. I find it difficult to take your discussions seriously.
Anyway, I have already detailed my religious beliefs in another thread. I recommend you read the forum rules and the banned topics list. As I understand it to be, a CAF rule bans posting multiple messages containing the same information. So you will have to get this information about my personal religious beliefs from the threads where it has been posted. I won’t be violating the CAF rule against cross posting and giving that information again.
 
40.png
PRmerger:
Just give me the one you find to be the best of the flawed, and why you find it wanting.
Click to expand...
Well, since we’re already talking about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, let’s deal with that.
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I agree with Tomdstone that premise 1 is unfounded. There does seem to be some evidence that suggests certain sub-atomic particles may form in an uncaused way. The field of quantum mechanics is far weirder than we imagined and we’re just getting started. Also, since our universe can be part of the set of ‘whatever’ we need to consider our knowledge of universes. I suggest that our sample size is limited to one and we are far from knowing that much about this one. Could it be that our universe did begin to exist and did so without an external cause? We don’t know. So I find insufficient justification to accept premise 1.

Similarly, I don’t think we have sufficient evidence to be certain of premise 2 either. As soon as you use the word ‘began’, you’re talking about a temporal sequence. If all of our space-time was formed at the Big Bang, then trying to talk about before our time was formed is nonsensical. But is there something outside of our universe that could be used as a frame of reference for the beginning of our universe? We haven’t a clue of the answer to that or even if it’s a sensible question.

With regard to arguments about an infinite universe, or an infinitely cyclical universe, I’m not yet convinced either way. I’m not convinced that an infinitely existing universe is necessarily impossible. Our understanding of the nature of time is in its infancy. So I have to reject premise 2 on this basis as well.
 
Late to the party. God is not created and thus, does not and cannot change. That which he makes is subject to His will - but we who are made in His image and likeness are graced with the will to change, to repent. Nothing else in all of creation has that blessing or ability. Since He is an active God and not passive, He is active in each and every aspect of our lives.

If that is not clear, consider that Mary’s virginity was not affected by giving birth; that Jesus rose from the grave and the tomb and rock were not affected; that Jesus appeared in the locked upper room and the doors were not affected.

Creation yields to Creator, just as you can make a drawing on paper, then add to it, erase parts of it, or tear it up. It is your creation and is subject to your will.

The universe will indeed change - read 2 Peter 3:10-13.
 
Tomdstone said:
Apparently you want to derail this thread and discuss my personal religious beliefs
Click to expand...
Well, since this is, em, a religious forum, I don’t think it’s that egregious to discuss…

wait for it…

wait for it…🙂

your…

religious beliefs.

What a weird thing to object to.

It’s like you were participating in a cruciverbalist forum and getting snippy with someone who wanted to discuss crossword puzzzles with you.

Do you believe God exists or not?

It’s entirely relevant to this discussion, and how you answer will determine how I proceed with answering the original question.
 
Nixbits said:
Well, since we’re already talking about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, let’s deal with that.
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I agree with Tomdstone that premise 1 is unfounded.
Click to expand...
Really?

Where else in the entirety of your experience have you ever seen something begin to exist which doesn’t have a cause?
There does seem to be some evidence that suggests certain sub-atomic particles may form in an uncaused way.
Click to expand...
Evidence, please, for this.
The field of quantum mechanics is far weirder than we imagined and we’re just getting started.
Click to expand...
Yep. You are correct here.
Also, since our universe can be part of the set of ‘whatever’ we need to consider our knowledge of universes. I suggest that our sample size is limited to one and we are far from knowing that much about this one. Could it be that our universe did begin to exist and did so without an external cause? We don’t know. So I find insufficient justification to accept premise 1.
Click to expand...
So this sounds kind of like the Science of the Gaps argument in reverse.

We don’t know, therefore it’s possible that science is weird and the explanation is, “That’s just how quantum mechanics works. It’s weird”.
Similarly, I don’t think we have sufficient evidence to be certain of premise 2 either. As soon as you use the word ‘began’, you’re talking about a temporal sequence
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that the universe did not begin?
 
Tomdstone said:
The real line is studied all the time in mathematics. there is a huge amount of mathematics which depends on the real line.
Click to expand...
Yes. You are correct here.
The real line extends infinitely to the left and to the right. You can easily make a 1-1 correspondence between the points on the real line and the time interval.
Click to expand...
Correct.
There is no loss in taking 0 to be a marker for the present time, -1 to represent one hour before the present and +1 to represent one hour in the future. Of course the time interval chosen is arbitrary so that -1 could also be taken to represent one year before the present, etc. The only additional requirement with using the real line to model time, is that with time there is only one direction possible from left to right or the arrow of time points to the future, whereas the tail points to the past. But this is similar to the vector concept which is used all the time in mathematics.
Click to expand...
Sure.

But when you have to pass each point in the number line BEFORE you reach Time A, if it’s INFINITELY regressed, you will NEVER reach Time A.

That’s just basic logic and basic math.
 
PRmerger said:
But when you have to pass each point in the number line BEFORE you reach Time A, if it’s INFINITELY regressed, you will NEVER reach Time A.
Click to expand...
That is, if time has actually discrete and therefore indivisible moments; such that there is a smallest “atomic” moment of time. And *if *you could somehow cut that in half, what you would be left with is something which surely isn’t time – much like if there was a smallest physical particle (whatever scientists are now saying that is). At least according to Aristotle, you can’t add up indivisible moments to infinity, because you would never reach a point in which you have a very large number that, when you add one to it, becomes infinite. It would just be another number which is marginally larger. That seems to be your argument; we would still be infinitely in the past, because you can’t count to infinity.

But that’s supposing time isn’t a continuum of points which are only *potentially *discrete inasmuch as we consider them in our cognition. This is somewhat like when we distinguish the form of a dog from the dog’s matter; in reality, the two are the same thing (a substance), but we can potentially separate or “abstract” them in our cognition. If time is a continuum, we don’t have to actually pass through an infinite amount of points to get to “now,” even if we can discretely consider these moments in our cognition. So, you would have to demonstrate that time is not a continuum, or otherwise demonstrate that there is of necessity something like an “atomic” moment. But that is probably subject to empirical investigation, such that the argument would always be on trial by the scientific community. You might appeal to the Planck length, but given how much turnover we see in scientific hypotheses, I don’t know if that’s a good thing to do. And if you turn to the metaphysics of time, I don’t know that you’ll find much help there. At least Aristotle and St. Thomas reject such things (since they think, respectively, an infinite past happened or could have happened).
 
Nixbits said:
Well, since we’re already talking about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, let’s deal with that.
  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
  2. The universe began to exist.
  3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I agree with Tomdstone that premise 1 is unfounded. There does seem to be some evidence that suggests certain sub-atomic particles may form in an uncaused way.
Click to expand...
From nothing?

Absolute nothing?
 
Randy_Carson said:
Because of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we know that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe were infinitely old, then it would have ALREADY run out of light and heat, etc. The fact that this is NOT the case points to the fact that the universe is NOT infinitely old. Therefore, it had a beginning…
Click to expand...
there are two objections:
  1. The 2nd law is a statistical law, not a deterministic law. As a statistical law it is governed by probablilities. the law says that generally and most probably, entropy will increase, which is what has always happened in our experience on the macro scale. However, according to the Poincare recurrence theorem, given an infinite amount of time, there will be cases when entropy will decrease.
  2. At the end of the expansion period, the universe will begin to contract and the expansion of the universe will reverse into its contraction phase until it gets back to a singularityof very low entropy. The extra energy required for this will be supplied by gravity. Gravitational energy does not exhaust.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top