no more fairytales about an eternal universe!

[edwest2]

The point of saying that is to go against Church teaching. The Church has infallibly declared that the Universe has a finite age. Look under the heading: “The Time Question.”

catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Peace,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

Crow:

Gods are magical beings, things we pretend are real so that we may have an explanation for something of which we are ignorant. Magical beings can explain everything, which is precisely why they don’t explain anything.

From the sound of this, it appears that you think very little of Christian thinkers. Do you really believe that Christian thinkers are so stupid that they would allow themselves to be duped by a concept of “magical beings”? I consider myself to be as intelligent as you are. I consider myself to be as clever as you are. I consider myself to be as resourceful as you are. And, I don’t believe in “magical beings”, but, I do believe in the Christian God.

To be honest, I think that there are believers, in these forums, that are considerably more intelligent than you or I. How do you explain their belief? Certainly such thinkers as Aquinas, Augustine, More, John of St. Thomas, Bonaventure, and many others you would not consider to be stupid. You may not as yet be convinced, but, there may be reasons for that. It is very difficult, not to mention time-consuming, to go through all of the considerations that I went through when travelling from non-theism back to Catholicism. I wish I could tell you exactly what did it for me, but, I can’t - at least, not in a sound-bite.

The use of magical beings to explain our observations is another excellent example of sophistry. Basically, when we become ill we should not blame the evil spirits. When we misplace our keys we should not blame mischievous gremlins.

You are correct.

Also, for a good observer, I don’t think there is much of a distinction between philosophy and science.

Crow, I also believe that I am as good an observer as you. And, I believe that there are better than us herein. There is a distinction between philosophy and modern science, though there shouldn’t be - except with respect to their respective objects or subjects.

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

If you wanted to cut off your feet, you’d first need to have them. Therefore, your feet must be eternal and uncaused.

Even if I did cut my feet off I’d still have feet. They just wouldn’t be attached anymore. So yes, the matter/energy that constitutes my feet is part of the cosmos and is eternal. That is a brute fact.

Put another way you can have zero feet, but you can never have zero cosmos. It is still everywhere all the time, including where your feet used to be.

 

[crowonsnow]

From the sound of this, it appears that you think very little of Christian thinkers.

I’m not singling out thinkers of any stripe, but merely pointing out the historical and cultural propensity to assign magical causes to events for which we presently lack explanatory knowledge. Lightning gods, volcano gods, succubi, etc.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that from a cosmological perspective the big bang is just another event for which we presently lack an explanation. In that sense it is no different from fire, volcanoes, hurricanes, famines, and other events that were encountered by our ancestors. Some people want to assign a magical cause to the big bang yet not to the tree that gets blown down in a storm. An event is an event. That falling tree isn’t something separate from the big bang.

 

[JDaniel]

I’m not singling out thinkers of any stripe, but merely pointing out the historical and cultural propensity to assign magical causes to events for which we presently lack explanatory knowledge. Lightning gods, volcano gods, succubi, etc.

I also think it’s worth pointing out that from a cosmological perspective the big bang is just another event for which we presently lack an explanation. In that sense it is no different from fire, volcanoes, hurricanes, famines, and other events that were encountered by our ancestors. Some people want to assign a magical cause to the big bang yet not to the tree that gets blown down in a storm. An event is an event. That falling tree isn’t something separate from the big bang.

Crow:

What you are doing now is throwing the entire kitchen sink into your argument, the purpose of which is, I guess, to divert the apologist with a blinding assortment of questions. Each of the physical events you cite as examples has causes that are known and mostly expected, and even some chance causes. They are all, as mentioned, physical events. Events which are connected to motion, i.e., coming to be and passing away.

Even though matter does not quit the cosmos, it can and does change form and that resultant form can be unusable heat energy. So, the Laws of Thermodynamics are not broken; the equilibrium is maintained, yet, the energy is lost to re-use by the cosmos. Eventual entropy is the passing away of the cosmos or, universe. At that point, the equilibrium will be decidedly different. There will be matter, but, no energy. The universe is a closed system. Where can the stuff of the universe go? There aren’t any windows or doors.

We can only look back, with our technologies, to the Planck era. We don’t know what took place on the front side of it, considering the concept of a priori to mean quantified place, rather than time. However, we can speculate and we can use logic. Speculation produces all sorts of scientific hypotheses. Logic produces only one possible outcome since we are already here, in this universe, and not in any speculative universe. Regarding that which is physical, we KNOW that that which is not in being already cannot bring itself into being. (I didn’t use the word, “exist”, because I remembered your dislike of the word!)

Really, I don’t care what dawn-of-man primitive man might have thought. I know that there are honest ignorants alive today. Honestly ignorant early men might have “believed in” fire gods, etc., but they didn’t necessarily turn into the Jews and Christians of Mesopotamia. There were primitive people elsewhere in the world and most of them remained paganistic.

The Yahweh of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, is a revealed God, with probably the lengthiest tradition of any of the seven or eight early religions of man having a single founder. The occurrences of real religions on earth are not the stuff of stories about believers in witchcraft, and the fire god, and moon god worshipers suddenly becoming Jews, Christians and Islamics. Nor did they suddenly turn into Hindus and Buddhists.

The Jews certainly didn’t need a magician god. Nor did Christians and Islamics. If you believe that those people were simply looking for magic tricks and found them, there’s nothing more that I can say. With all due respect, please read some history.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

I’m just not allowing the use of language to limit my musings and observations, odd as that may sound.

I see. Then this shall be interesting!

jd

 

[crowonsnow]

What you are doing now is throwing the entire kitchen sink into your argument, the purpose of which is, I guess, to divert the apologist with a blinding assortment of questions. Each of the physical events you cite as examples has causes that are known and mostly expected, and even some chance causes. They are all, as mentioned, physical events. Events which are connected to motion, i.e., coming to be and passing away.

No. No diversion. I could counter, however that your assertion of diversion is a diversion. The brute fact of a cosmos is simply something indisputable. It transcends cultural differences.

We can only look back, with our technologies, to the Planck era. We don’t know what took place on the front side of it, considering the concept of a priori to mean quantified place, rather than time. However, we can speculate and we can use logic. Speculation produces all sorts of scientific hypotheses. Logic produces only one possible outcome since we are already here, in this universe, and not in any speculative universe. Regarding that which is physical, we KNOW that that which is not in being already cannot bring itself into being. (I didn’t use the word, “exist”, because I remembered your dislike of the word!)

There are no events that are not physical. The only reason physical is part of our language is because of our superstitious nature and our imaginations. These brain activities do however confer definite survival advantages and is why they persist.

For example if I invented a new word - noncosmic, or acosmic - meaning having nothing to do with the cosmos, it would amount to an absurdity. But if it became an established part of our language like the word physical/non-physical we would use it anyway. There are lots of words like that.

Really, I don’t care what dawn-of-man primitive man might have thought. I know that there are honest ignorants alive today. Honestly ignorant early men might have “believed in” fire gods, etc., but they didn’t necessarily turn into the Jews and Christians of Mesopotamia. There were primitive people elsewhere in the world and most of them remained paganistic.

I’d advise you to pick up Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel and educate yourself about the roots of cultural inequality before making such silly claims. I’m not a cultural racist or supremacist. I understand the roots of inequality. Everyone should. The world would be a more peaceful productive place if that were the case.

The Jews certainly didn’t need a magician god. Nor did Christians and Islamics. If you believe that those people were simply looking for magic tricks and found them, there’s nothing more that I can say. With all due respect, please read some history.

They’re all stone age superheroes. Only the names change.

But we digress.

 

[JDaniel]

No. No diversion. I could counter, however that your assertion of diversion is a diversion.

Yeah. And you’d probably be right.

The brute fact of a cosmos is simply something indisputable.

No doubt. And, the brute fact that it came to be in the somewhat distant past is something indisputable, too.

There are no events that are not physical.

Of course there are. The moment I fell in love with my wife was a non-physical event.

The only reason physical is part of our language is because of our superstitious nature and our imaginations.

Not so. The most likely reason that word became part of our language was from medicine. Later, it seemed like a cool alternative to the word, “material.” Lots of words come into popular use because they are cool alternatives.

These brain activities do however confer definite survival advantages and is why they persist.

Rather, I think they persist because they come to represent the object of their meaning with better precision. Period.

For example if I invented a new word - noncosmic, or acosmic - meaning having nothing to do with the cosmos, it would amount to an absurdity.

Shhhhhh. Don’t tell anyone, but, actually, I think you’re a little late.

But if it became an established part of our language like the word physical/non-physical we would use it anyway. There are lots of words like that.

You bet there are. Cool words.

I’d advise you to pick up Diamond’s Guns Germs and Steel and educate yourself about the roots of cultural inequality before making such silly claims. I’m not a cultural racist or supremacist. I understand the roots of inequality. Everyone should. The world would be a more peaceful productive place if that were the case.

Inequality was not the subject of any of my post.

They’re all stone age superheroes. Only the names change.

But we digress.

Shirley you jest.

jd

 

[liquidpele]

There are no events that are not physical. The only reason physical is part of our language is because of our superstitious nature and our imaginations. These brain activities do however confer definite survival advantages and is why they persist.

For example if I invented a new word - noncosmic, or acosmic - meaning having nothing to do with the cosmos, it would amount to an absurdity. But if it became an established part of our language like the word physical/non-physical we would use it anyway. There are lots of words like that.

Well… technically you may be correct, but it doesn’t make very much sense to actually think of it that way. I can imagine what would happen if I were to bang a hammer on my hand… and this effects my judgement that it would be a bad idea… so in that the non-physical idea effects my physical actions it is a real thing.

Now, sure, you can say that my neurons and memories conditioned me to make that choice so it was actually all physical. However, I would submit that the following:

1. The process is so insanely complicated that is makes no practical sense to think of it that way, especially given that the environment adjusts such things to a high degree over time.
2. We still don’t understand the nature of many quantum mechanic type interactions, and thus there very well could be a factor of randomness involved in proteins or DNA replicated, or more importantly the chemical reactions in the brain, which could alter our decision making and thus our “non physical” aspects in a way that makes them unpredictable in the true sense of the word and thus more of a real thing than a simulated response.

Thus, I think it is fair to say that there are intangible and “non-physical” things as long as you understand the limitations involved (namely, that they are functions of us and our society, so they only exist as log as we exist).

 

[MindOverMatter]

I agree with St. Bonaventure’s argument against St. Thomas’ also.

I just hate to have to choose between two great saints.

In either case, I find this completely irrefutable. I don’t see St. Thomas’ counter-point as having anything at all against this, and as so, it is not correct that an infinite universe is possible in logical terms. That’s basically St. Bonaventure’s point also and it also seems irrefutable.

Another variation of this arguement would be to say that the present moment is the sum total of all past events. But if the past is infinite, how can one attribute a number to the present event? One would have to say that all numbers have been transversed; but there is no such thing as all numbers.

My own refutation is simply to say this**:** There is no such thing as an infinity of successive numbers, as in, there is no number that can represent infinity. Therefore there is no such thing as an infinite number of events.

Its irrefutable.

Heres another one**:** It is irrational to say that there is an infinity in the past, because an actual infinity by definition, as representing a duration of events, includes all events and all durations, since nothing can transverse or transcend an infinite number.

Heres another one**:** When one says that there is an infinite number of past events, they are saying that it is infinite because of the numbers it contains and so an infinite is thus dependent on every single number. That means if i take away one, it can no longer be infinite. But if i can take away one to such an extent as to cause a substantial change to the number of events, then that means that there is a an actual number that can be reached that represents infinity. This means that infinity is a finite number away from being finite. And here in lies the contradiction; since there is no number that can complete all numbers.

I could go on to construct a more profound and abstract refutation of an infinite past; however i am what you might call a “young-old-man”, and so i need my rest.

Heres one more**:** An infinite is not a number.

A refutation lies in that simple statement, if you are smart enough to see it.

The sad thing is, in my opinion, Aquinas actually refutes an infinite number of events with his own philosophy (although in a more abstract manner), and yet doesn’t seem to see it.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Hello.:aok:

I use to be dumb, until a chewed a stick of gum, which had the name Aquinas printed on the side.
In an an instant i was smart, intellectually advanced, because Aquinas taught the truth before he died.

 

[cerad]

when the leading lights of QM prove that an expanding universe must have a beginning, i think the eternal universe argument we often hear is deader than a doornail!

what do you all think of this?

I don’t see how it is possible for anything to be deader than a doornail. A doornail has no life. It’s dead though I’m not sure if it is really all that accurate to describe something as dead when it never had a life to begin with. In any event, I don’t see how you can get any deader than dead. And certainly nothing in the article you linked to implies otherwise.

As usual you seem to be drawing conclusions that bear little relation to the evidence.

 

[MindOverMatter]

I don’t see how it is possible for anything to be deader than a doornail. A doornail has no life. It’s dead though I’m not sure if it is really all that accurate to describe something as dead when it never had a life to begin with. In any event, I don’t see how you can get any deader than dead. And certainly nothing in the article you linked to implies otherwise.

As usual you seem to be drawing conclusions that bear little relation to the evidence.

These statements are repugnant. But not because you might be right. It is because you are just making statements for which you have given no support what-so-ever; and yet you have the audacity to be critical of somebody else’s methods. Are you not tired of just typing random words of baseless criticism that merely appear to give you intellectual credibility? Or are you going to actually contribute some rigorous philosophical arguments?

 

[MindOverMatter]

what do you all think of this?

They say that the universe is a free lunch.
I say that is pure fantasy!!.

 

[punkforchrist]

Hi crow,

Even if I did cut my feet off I’d still have feet. They just wouldn’t be attached anymore. So yes, the matter/energy that constitutes my feet is part of the cosmos and is eternal. That is a brute fact.

Put another way you can have zero feet, but you can never have zero cosmos. It is still everywhere all the time, including where your feet used to be.

I don’t think that would constitute a brute fact, even if matter/energy were eternal. Brute facts have no explanation whatsoever, not even in the necessity of their own nature.

In any case, the law of conservation of mass and energy applies only to a closed system. When it comes to the initial singularity, as postulated by the standard Big Bang theory, we are dealing with an open system. At the singularity, there is no matter or energy; it simply came into existence at the Big Bang.

We can either say that the Big Bang had a cause or that it came from absolutely nothing. I opt for the former.

 

[reggieM]

Another variation of this arguement would be to say that the present moment is the sum total of all past events. But if the past is infinite, how can one attribute a number to the present event? One would have to say that all numbers have been transversed; but there is no such thing as all numbers.

My own refutation is simply to say this**:** There is no such thing as an infinity of successive numbers, as in, there is no number that can represent infinity. Therefore there is no such thing as an infinite number of events.

Its irrefutable.

Heres another one**:** It is irrational to say that there is an infinity in the past, because an actual infinity by definition, as representing a duration of events, includes all events and all durations, since nothing can transverse or transcend an infinite number.

Heres another one**:** When one says that there is an infinite number of past events, they are saying that it is infinite because of the numbers it contains and so an infinite is thus dependent on every single number. That means if i take away one, it can no longer be infinite. But if i can take away one to such an extent as to cause a substantial change to the number of events, then that means that there is a an actual number that can be reached that represents infinity. This means that infinity is a finite number away from being finite. And here in lies the contradiction; since there is no number that can complete all numbers.

I could go on to construct a more profound and abstract refutation of an infinite past; however i am what you might call a “young-old-man”, and so i need my rest.

Heres one more**:** An infinite is not a number.

A refutation lies in that simple statement, if you are smart enough to see it.

The sad thing is, in my opinion, Aquinas actually refutes an infinite number of events with his own philosophy (although in a more abstract manner), and yet doesn’t seem to see it.

Excellent arguments.

I was looking at Aquinas’ writings on this and his arguments against an infinite universe are very strong – and he didn’t accept that the universe was eternal either. His arguments attempting to prove that there is some possiblity for an infinite universe are weak and it looked to me like he was just giving some tiny thread of a possibility for this.

He writes (in Summa Contra Gentiles) in talking about arguments against an infinite universe:

[8] Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God. It would seem fitting, then, to state how these arguments are countered by the partisans of the doctrine of the world’s eternity.

That seems like a strange comment. I read a commentator on this and if true, it opened my eyes. The Thomistic commentator said that St. Thomas didn’t want to accept that arguments against an infinite universe were “absolute and necessary” because if he did – then he thought that nobody could possibly deny the existence of God. He definitely has a good point there.

As it stands, I can’t see how St. Thomas’ own arguments denying that the universe is infinite can be refuted.

But as you said, he couldn’t see it that way himself.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem deals with the possibility of eternal inflation under certain models of the universe. It does not rule out a number of different past-eternal models (such as the Baum-Frampton model). In a recent paper, Paul Frampton discusses why the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not show that the universe must have had a beginning:

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.2730v2.pdf

I don’t have any physics degrees, so my ability to argue physics is somewhat limited. But from what I’ve read, the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem does not have the implications that people like William Lane Craig wish it did.

i have been on a trip and i have many posts to address. let me speak to the first problem i see then.

We address two questions about the past for infinitely cyclic cosmology. The first
is whether it **can contain an infinite length null geodesic **into the past in view of the
Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) ”no-go” theorem, The second is whether, given that a
small fraction of spawned universes fail to cycle, there is an adequate probability
for a successful universe after an infinite time. We give positive answers to both
questions then show that in infinite cyclicity the total number of universes has been
infinite for an arbitrarily long time.

i bolded the problem areas.

in the first, there are no existent infinities possible. jdaniel may have something to say here.

in the second, the first is contingent on infinite time. as time is product of this universe, it must then pre exist this universe in order to allow for cyclicity.

more to come…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

i have been on a trip and i have many posts to address. let me speak to the first problem i see then.

i bolded the problem areas.

in the first, there are no existent infinities possible. jdaniel may have something to say here.

in the second, the first is contingent on infinite time. as time is product of this universe, it must then pre exist this universe in order to allow for cyclicity.

more to come…

having examined the abstract, i see that they assume an eternal universe, to justify the eternal universe, though mathematically interesting to a physicist, which i am not, it fails miserably in this regard.

in order for them to be correct it seems that the universe must first be eternal.

there are other issues in the paper, several fatal, but i need more time to traverse their arguments and specifically the mathematical assumptions they use. as im not a physicist, puzzling out some of the higher math is quite time comsuming.

 

[thegrons]

St. Bonaventure provides five separate arguments against an eternal universe in 2 Sententiarium. The two most widely known are today advocated by William Lane Craig: leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html

The argument I was referring to was this:

1. An actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition.
2. An eternal universe entails an actual infinite formed by successive addition.
3. Hence, an eternal universe cannot exist.
4. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

Thomas’ disagreement was with (2). He stated that it is always possible to conceive of a time prior to the time before. He suggested that since every moment of time in the past is only a finite distance away from the present, and every finite time can be traversed, then the entire infinite past can likewise be traversed.

The problem I see with this objection is that it commits a composition fallacy. Even though every finite time can be traversed, it doesn’t follow that the infinite whole can be. Besides this, even if it were possible for the universe to be infinitely old, we are left with no explanation as to why the present arrived today and not yesterday, or the day before, or at any finite time in the past - since by that time, an actually infinite period of time had already elapsed.

An actual infinite cannot exist in reality for obvious reasons, it can exist in set theory but not in space and time, but what I find interesting about the argument for an eternal universe is that it is an argument from ignorance. No scientist can ever prove how when or if the universe had a beginning. No scientist can ever recreate creation or prove eternality in a laboratory, hence all they can give us is a bunch of fifty cent words to disguise their worldviews and atheistic presuppositions. We do know that there is no such a thing as objectivity among mankind and we can only go as far as we are willing to accept certain basic beliefs that are agreed upon (at least the atheist is caught in this quagmire). So the atheist who denies transcendental laws of reason only has "convention’ to ground her beliefs in which are not science, but again back to philosophy. In fact all of science (especially physics) is grounded in convention in the atheist realm and there laws are arbitrarily derived; so what compelling case can she put forth for me to accept her laws? None.

But philosophically we can show that it is not possible (an eternal universe) for if the universe were to be a necessary being or thing (which is ontologically and logically necesary), this universe would still have demonstrated design but failed to show how consciousness and intelligence came from rocks and hot lava? and if folks like Hume and the recently departed English Dawkins? (Who is now a believer) try to say that there is no design except for what we impose on it. Then what they are saying is that we (being part of the universe) rather the universe is imposing design on itself. Makes sense ha? Another point would be that ontologically an eternal object or being has no potentiality, yet we see potential energy, higher forms of life supposedly evolving from lower forms of life–but the real kicker is that in order for an atheist to have any traction she must dispose of a Creator or unmoved mover - yet she has not. She has merely renamed this unmoved mover - the One with self sustaining existence, from God to “the Universe”. So as hard as she tries she cannot ditch the fact that a universe with or without beginning of time requires or unmoved mover and this unmoved mover is either God or the universe. Personally I like the God of the Bible more than the God of the atheist whom they refer to as Mother Nature.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

are you tired of the eternal universe argument? you know its not right but you dont have a good counter argument that just shuts it right down?

let me introduce to you the new, improved lemony fresh shut it down refutation.

“In 2003 Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth were able to demonstrate a theorem which proved that any universe which has on average been globally expanding at a positive rate has a past boundary and therefore cannot be infinite in the past.”

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090610175456AAGUNM3

when the leading lights of QM prove that an expanding universe must have a beginning, i think the eternal universe argument we often hear is deader than a doornail!

what do you all think of this?

The shut it down argument is the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas. They demonstrate the necessity of an eternal, all powerful, intelligent, living, perfect Being, Who has no cause Himself and Who accounts for the existence of any and all conceivable universes, whether eternal or created out of nothing in time. End of argument. And you don’t even have to be a scientist to understand them.

In fact you don’t even need Thomas’ formal proofs. The universe exists, it cannot account for its own existence. Therefore God exists. And this is true for any possible universe, eternal, or beginning in time. This is the common sense argument and is enough to silence all but the foolish who insist on displaying their foolishness.

But even more overwhelming is the fact of Divine Revelation and that Jesus Christ is Who he said he was and that he actually did all all the things the Apostles and Disciples said he did and that he was foretold in the writings of the Israelites, through their Prophets. Yes, I said it. Divine Revelation is a fact. Deny it if you want, that will not make it go away. Period.

You know I can understand why a person might hate God ;and reject Him, but someone who says He doesn’t exist is just, well - :whacky:

Linus2nd