Letter to a Christian Nation

[cranster]

Hi cranster,

Why is infinite regression disallowed?

because there is no point from which to proceed forward into the future.

 

[Leela]

Hi holy1,

You appear to be unfamiliar with the concepts of a potential infinity and an actual infinity.

No, I’m not. Can you explain what you mean and how the distinction is relevant?

1. 
   *]Infinity, by definition, is unachievable.

1. 
   I can’t think what it means to achieve infinity or to achieve a rock or a bird for that matter. Category error?
   

   *]Past time has occurred (been achieved.)
   *]Infinite past time therefore would be an achieved unachievable.
   *]An achieved unachievable is a contradiction and cannot be.

   It seems to me that time extending infinitely in two directions starting from the present should be comprehensible to someone who claims to understand what it could mean to exist outside of time. What we experience directly is now. The past and the future are inferences from this primary experience.
   
   Best,
   Leela

 

[Leela]

because there is no point from which to proceed forward into the future.

You can imagine proceeding further into the future from EVERY point in time. Likewise you can imagine regressing into the past from any point in time.

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

Leela,

How are you getting on with your reading?

You seem to spend a lot of time reacting, saying ‘it ain’t so’ and playing word games.

BTW there is a difference between acknowledging that the universe is made of matter, and using materialist ‘tools’ and being a materialist.

Perhaps you could think about in your own terms - you don’t believe in God but you spend an awful lot of time talking about Him.

 

[cranster]

You can imagine proceeding further into the future from EVERY point in time. Likewise you can imagine regressing into the past from any point in time.

Best,
Leela

time is linear. You cannot proceed into the future from an infinite series of days preceeding today as your starting point, because there is no starting point in an infinite series… when you pick a point in time to proceed from, the series ceases to be infinite.

If there were truly an infinite amount of days before today, then every logical possibility would have occured an infinite amount of times. including the possibility the universe never existed… an infinite amount of times.

 

[Leela]

time is linear. You cannot proceed into the future from an infinite series of days preceeding today as your starting point, because there is no starting point in an infinite series… when you pick a point in time to proceed from, the series ceases to be infinite.

Hi Cranster,

If time is linear and proceeds infinitely in both directions, then any point in time could be considered a starting point. Take now for example. You can imagine projecting time infinitely into the future and infinitely into the past.

If there were truly an infinite amount of days before today, then every logical possibility would have occured an infinite amount of times. including the possibility the universe never existed… an infinite amount of times.

If time is linear then there is only one possibility for what occurred and what will occur or is occurring. There are other hypotheses about time as well.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

There were 500 people that witnessed Him ascend into Heaven.

According to the Biblical evidence, the claim that there were 500 eye witnesses was made by a man who was not an eye witness.

Then there was the silent witness of the Pharisees. They were a witness because they made sure Pilate had that tomb locked down tight so nobody could tamper with it. Pilate placed a Roman guard at the tomb… some where between 4 and 12 men. The best way for the Pharisees to squelch a budding Jewish heretical sect was to have a body to show, and with the vigor they had Jesus executed they would have put just as much energy in making sure all knew where that body was. They were silent because they did not have a body to show. The claims of Resurrection happened in the center of Judaism… Jerusalem. All people had to do was go to the tomb to see for themselves. History has never been able to provide a body. The Mary’s are significant because women at the time were not considered credible witnesses and were not permitted to testify in court. It was difficult for the Apostles to mention this fact because of the prevailing attitude about women at the time. Their accounts were simple and lacked the element of legend. If the Apostles were making it up they would have used the 1st century Jewish understanding of Resurrection to explain it to the Jew’s. They understood a resurrected person to shine as bright as a star. Their account wasn’t anything like that.
Here is a good little article about the historical evidence.

I don’t find the accounts of such a miracle in a 2000 year old book compelling. There are other such ancient accounts of miracles including non-canonical Gospels and other religion’s texts that we discount. Why would we dicount these and not the Biblical accounts?

 

[Leela]

Leela,

How are you getting on with your reading?

You seem to spend a lot of time reacting, saying ‘it ain’t so’ and playing word games.

BTW there is a difference between acknowledging that the universe is made of matter, and using materialist ‘tools’ and being a materialist.

Perhaps you could think about in your own terms - you don’t believe in God but you spend an awful lot of time talking about Him.

Hi Fran,

I’m not interested in word games.

You say you acknowledge that the universe is made of matter as a fact, but that does not make you a materialist. What is a materialist to you?

Best,
Leela

 

[cranster]

Hi Cranster,

If time is linear and proceeds infinitely in both directions, then any point in time could be considered a starting point. Take now for example. You can imagine projecting time infinitely into the future and infinitely into the past.

Leela

Now if I’m understanding what you’re saying, you are asserting that you can arbitrarily pick a point in time for the universe to begin?

I’m saying it’s not logically possible for the universe to have existed for an infinite amount of days prior to today. That amount of time is not achievable. If you pick a point for the universe to begin then you’ve removed everything prior and infinity from the equation. I think you’re assuming that time just kept going back infinitely before anything existed then at some point the universe just appeared on the timeline. You are making the assumption that time proceeds infinitely in both directions. I don’t agree with that assumption. I think time began with space, and correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure Einstein said we have 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The 2 exist together and came into existance from a singularity.

for arguments sake let’s say the universe always was, which is not possible, or pick a day for the universe to begin from a point in time. The real question is… why a universe as apposed to a giant banana? why existance of anything at all? How do you account for existance itself?

Fortunately modern cosmologists are pretty confident time, space, and matter started all at once from a singularity of infinite mass and energy about 14 billion years ago.

 

[Michael_David]

Cranster said “Fortunately modern cosmologists are pretty confident time, space, and matter started all at once from a singularity of infinite mass and energy about 14 billion years ago.”

I have heard the 14 billion years for the age of the earth (not the universe). And in the milky-way galaxy, the earths position has went around the center about 4 times. The earth is in the 3rd band that radiates out from the center of the galaxy… there is an earlier 4th band further out then us from the center, and 2 more recent bands younger then us closer to the center. The Hubble telescope has shown us this.

As far as galaxies go, our own milky-way, what is it’s position and time factor to the ‘center of the universe’… wherever that is, it has not been found yet. We have solar system which we are a part of on planet earth; we have galaxy with many solar systems, also spinning around it’s center; and we have universe with many galaxies all spinning around a center somewhere we have not found yet; and now, perhaps, our universe is spinning around another ‘mass’ yet not named along with many other universes doing the same as ours. We may not be the only universe in this ‘thing’… and you are trying to define ‘infinity’…

 

[Leela]

Hi Cranster,

Now if I’m understanding what you’re saying, you are asserting that you can arbitrarily pick a point in time for the universe to begin?

The First Cause argument relies on the unjustified assertion (among others) that the uiverse has a beginning. I’m saying that the universe may or may not have a beginning. We just don’t know.

I’m saying it’s not logically possible for the universe to have existed for an infinite amount of days prior to today. That amount of time is not achievable. If you pick a point for the universe to begin then you’ve removed everything prior and infinity from the equation. I think you’re assuming that time just kept going back infinitely before anything existed then at some point the universe just appeared on the timeline.

I don’t understand why it is not possible to imagine a time line extending infinitly in both directions.

It doesn’t make sense to say at some point (presumably some point in time) that time came into being.

You are making the assumption that time proceeds infinitely in both directions. I don’t agree with that assumption.

You don’t need to agree with that assumption. I’m not assuming it either. I’m just saying that we don’t know whether then universe alwas existed or had a beginning, whether alternative time lines coexist or not, whether the universe is in an infinite cylce of contracting into a singularity and exploding in big bangs or not. I don’t know how any such hypotheses could be tested.

I think time began with space, and correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure Einstein said we have 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time. The 2 exist together and came into existance from a singularity.

I think the idea is to comine them to a four (possibly more) dimensional space-time. I don’t know what he had to say about coming into existence.

for arguments sake let’s say the universe always was, which is not possible, or pick a day for the universe to begin from a point in time. The real question is… why a universe as apposed to a giant banana? why existance of anything at all? How do you account for existance itself?

I don’t know why a universe would bother to exist, but I’m also not convinced that anyone else knows either. This may be a question that human beings will never know the answer to.

To move forward, let me accept for the sake of argument that the universe had a beginning. Can you continue with the First Cause argument from there?

Best,
Leela

 

[Fran65]

What is a materialist to you?

This quote from the following site summarises my understanding:

answers.com/topic/materialism

(As an academic it is good practice and good manners to cite one’s sources, particularly if quoting verbatim.)

“The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

In my own words, it is the theory that nothing exists outside physical matter. That conscious experience has a purely biological basis, that there is no soul and when the brain dies, so does individual experience. That there is no God and nothing beyond the confines of the observable (potentially) physical universe; and that the origin of the universe can be explained in terms of physical laws and processes (albeit unknown at the moment) etc.

 

[Fran65]

It doesn’t make sense to say at some point (presumably some point in time) that time came into being.

If you are not a physicist or mathematician it is hard to grasp!There’s a lot of those kind of concepts ‘out there’. Fortunately, there are a number of very good popular physics books that attempt to explain some of the issues. John Gribbin is excellent for a start. One of his best was ‘In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat.’ Its an introduction to quantum physics.

I love spending autumn/winter evenings learning new stuff!

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If you are not a physicist or mathematician it is hard to grasp!There’s a lot of those kind of concepts ‘out there’. Fortunately, there are a number of very good popular physics books that attempt to explain some of the issues. John Gribbin is excellent for a start. One of his best was ‘In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat.’ Its an introduction to quantum physics.

I love spending autumn/winter evenings learning new stuff!

unfortunately you are right, a lack of understanding concerning the current state of cosmology, physics,and mathematics does seem to cause a certain chaos

one doesnt need to be an expert, merely familiar enough to make sense

remember, any argument that denies or disagrees with the observable universe is false by definition those arguments are just sophistry, nothing but pretty word games having no grounding in existent reality

 

[Leela]

This quote from the following site summarises my understanding:

answers.com/topic/materialism

(As an academic it is good practice and good manners to cite one’s sources, particularly if quoting verbatim.)

“The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.”

In my own words, it is the theory that nothing exists outside physical matter. That conscious experience has a purely biological basis, that there is no soul and when the brain dies, so does individual experience. That there is no God and nothing beyond the confines of the observable (potentially) physical universe; and that the origin of the universe can be explained in terms of physical laws and processes (albeit unknown at the moment) etc.

Hi Fran,

I’d like to continue our exchange in the STEM thread if you don’t mind.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Slavery in those days was not a matter of “popularity”. It was a matter of survival, and not survival of the Church but rather the survival of the population who would be prohibited from having their form of slavery.

It is not at all obvious to me how enslaving others wold be necessary for the survival of the enslaver and the enslaved. Can you explain?

No for you. You’ll have to do your own research. I’ve given you a couple of links to info about historical slavery. Have at!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
God deemed it more important that His chosen people be allowed the “occasion to sin” called “slavery” than not be able to survive AS a people.

Just as He now allows us “just war”, and to a lesser extent “capital punishment”, He allowed them “their type of slavery”.

Some day, when (if?) it becomes possible to not need to war, as some other “mechanism” makes war a “sub-optimal” choice, then war in any form, too, will be abolished as a moral choice, as an “acceptable occasion to sin” (aka “acceptable risk”), as slavery now has been.

Were people who owned slaves in ancient times sinning? Are you saying that those who participate in war right now are sinning?

People who owned slaves when owning slaves was unavoidable were not sinning, anymore than those who engage in just war now are not sinning.

Sinning involves “culpability”.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Leela, please try to keep this axiom in mind:

God makes the rules, and His rules are always moral.

I guess this isn’t so much an axiom for you but a tautology, but for someone who does not believe in God it makes more sense to think of moral as traditionally defined–what is good to do.

The real axiom here is that you postulate that God’s rules can be known and are taught by the Catholic church.

I have three terms in my axiom: God, rules, and moral.

A tautology would be “God is God”. My axiom is that God makes the rules, and those rules are always moral.

I’m glad we agree that an axiom of us Catholics is that “God’s rules can be known and that they are indeed taught by the Church (Catholic)”, though! That’s some “forward movement” on your part. Congratulations!

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
He CANNOT want anyone to do a thing that is immoral.

Based on the tautology you set up this would indeed be impossible. Yet, for me, if I imagine that there is a personal creator of the universe, I may not want to follow his rules just as my daughters may decide freely when they become adults to not follow mine. They may very well know better than I at that point how they shold live. In fact, I hope they do.

…which is why you are not God, and aren’t “equipped” to decide what is and is not moral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
For you to be told that twelve-thousand times, and yet come back once again and say “…if God were immoral…”, borders on your being “mocking” of what we believe.

It is not mocking to not accept your axioms.

I’m not asking you to ACCEPT our axioms. I’m asking you to accept that we accept our axioms, and that you understand what those axioms are.

If it isn’t obvious to you, after all this “education” we’re giving you, that the statement “…if God were immoral…” is simply provoking us to ONCE AGAIN explain to you why that’s an axiomatic (to us) impossibility, which is ANNOYING to us because we KNOW that you’re not a dummy and we’ve already explained that to you several times, then you are mocking us by being so “uncharacteristically” lame-brained, when we know you’re not a lame-brain.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Please dispense with the fuzzy logic. Belief is what we do, and not what others do to us.

If you don’t believe something, you need to find out why. Do you not think the source of the offered “wisdom” is credible? Do you want what is “unwise”? Do you simply not know what “wise” means?

No, I don’t think the source of the offered “wisdom” is credible. I think we know more about just about everything than we did 2000 years ago which includes ethics.

I realize that. I think you’re wrong. So, we’re at an impasse. I’m glad that we understand each other a bit better. How about you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Therefore, you are quite simply left with only relying on yourself as “arbiter of wisdom”. You decide what is moral (and immoral).

Wisdom is not “invention”. It is recognition. We don’t fashion new wisdom, but rather recognize the truths which make us wise.

What you are missing is that storehouses of wisdom come from experts in wisdom, and how are we (or you) experts in wisdom comparable to the Church (extended back to Adam himself)?

I think wisdom is different from intelligence.

I agree.

Wisdom is about perspective rather than computational power. I think a broader perspective is now available to us than was available 2000 years ago, and we should make use of what we’ve learned and try to make new discoveries rather than trying to discover what Adam knew.

Do you think we (Catholics) are trying to “discover what Adam knew”, instead of inventing western, and world, civilization as a morally correct and intellectually and materially powerful society?

…but, since you MUST see religion at war with science, as a committed (atheistic) scientistic materialist, your abject hatred of religion, the “evil anti-science”, is perfectly understandable.

The Church is interested in helping mankind to not generate any more Hitler’s and his like. That atheists see nothing wrong with Hitler, other than he was “clumsy” in his means while fully admiring his ends, other than his end of making a “god” of himself instead of them, is why we are not atheists, and why atheists ARE atheists.

Atheists want total freedom to be evil, if they like.

Non-atheists want freedom within moral bounds.

That is our difference.

:shamrock2:

 

[1holycatholic]

No, I’m not. Can you explain what you mean and how the distinction is relevant?

Read Aristotle.

I can’t think what it means to achieve infinity or to achieve a rock or a bird for that matter. Category error?

It’s not a category error.

Explain how you count to infinity.

 

[cranster]

Cranster said “Fortunately modern cosmologists are pretty confident time, space, and matter started all at once from a singularity of infinite mass and energy about 14 billion years ago.”

I have heard the 14 billion years for the age of the earth (not the universe). .

The earths age is about 4.5 billions years and the sun is about 5 billion years, the universe is somewhere between 13 and a half to 14 billions years.