Question on Invincible Ignorance

[ProdglArchitect]

They haven’t found any explanations yet. Why do we assume that they never will? I’m also curious why this means that we should rule out natural explanations simply because we don’t know.

I don’t assume that they never will; I stated later in the post that they very well may discover the mechanic that forged our universe. But a mechanic still requires a force to set it in motion.

Also, have we ever examined nothingness? True nothingness? I was under the impression that we can examine up to the point of the big bang. To claim what was before is just conjecture. It could have been anything. Yes, the universe had a beginning, but why do we assume it’s nothingness from whence it came? Why not something natural since we can’t examine that particular area as of yet?

You’re applying my statements to our specific universe. I said in one of my earlier posts that when I refer to “our universe” I am referencing existence as a whole, whether is be only this universe, or an exceptionally long series of universes. I assume that it was nothingness because logically it must have been nothingness.

The existence of time demands that there was once something “before” time, otherwise time would have no base point from which we measure it (the start of the effects of entropy). Since it has to have a beginning, there must be a “before.” (A beginning implies a change. Since something physical cannot change before it exists, we must assume that at some point “time” came into existence so that it could change enough to begin.) Since time is an attribute of physics (meaning that it did not exist prior to the existence of physical matter) we must also infer that physical matter had a beginning, and therefore there was something before the physical reality. Since the terms “something” or “nothing” refer to physical properties of matter, anything prior to the physical reality would -have- to be “nothing.”

To answer another thing you said. You particularly said that science can never say what put the universe in motion. Why can’t we assume that the universe (or possibly multi verse) has eternally existed just like God?

Time prevents us from reaching this conclusion. The existence of entropy and decay necessitates a starting point. If there were no starting point, entropy and decay would have no effect because they never would have “started”. Therefore, we would not experience the effects of “time” as we understand them. Since time absolutely exists, and since a starting point is required for any sort of meaningful measurements, we must come to the conclusions that time had a starting point. If it has a starting point, it cannot have “always existed.”

I also find it interesting that you said we can’t scientifically prove God. Do you think that there is any method that can prove Gods existence? Or is it just faith?

I believe with every fiber of my being that it is absolutely, 100% impossible for a living human to prove or disprove the existence of God; at least, to prove or disprove Him in a manner which would be considered “scientifically sound.” I find that there is plenty of proof for God in the world, but it is pretty much all derived from faith.

For instance, the very existence of the concept of “good” is proof enough for me. This is another philosophical argument, feel free to not bother writing anything back about it if you don’t want to, I just wanted to give an example.

“Good” as a concept infers an absolute standard on which it is based. This standard cannot be human in origin, because it would be liable to change. If the concept of good were liable to change, then good could be defined on a person-to-person basis. I could say that murder is “good,” and due to the relative nature of good, it truly would be “good” for me. At this point, most arguers would then say that “good” is defined by the majority. This also doesn’t hold up, because the majority opinion is subject to change just as easily as an individuals. If you don’t believe me, just look at abortion. It took a mere 40 years for it to transition from being considered an absolute evil, and being condemned by basically every religious group on the planet, to now being (fraudulently) considered healthcare. No, you cannot look to the majority to define what is “good” any more than you can look to the individual.

At this point, if neither the individual nor society (humanity as a whole) is able to adequately define the concept of “good,” it must then fall to a party which exists outside of the changeable nature of humanity; that is, that exists outside of the capacity for change. As such, we logically arrive at the existence of a being who exists outside of our changeable (physical) reality, i.e. God.

Unfortunately, I don’t think I’ll be able to post again tonight. I would love to continue this discussion though. Please respond if you want to, and I’ll pick up tomorrow.

God Bless, I hope you are enjoying our debate ^^

 

[thistle]

Before we move on, lets clarify a definition. A lot of Atheists use my definition of Atheism. Heres a diagram where my beliefs are at the top left : 3.bp.blogspot.com/-mTQMZdLU_jk/TgWwERJO5jI/AAAAAAAAAKw/bQTT6ai5bwI/s1600/Agnostic%2Bv%2BGnostic%2Bv%2BAtheist%2Bv%2BTheist.png

You will find that very few people are gnostic atheists when pressed. Even Richard dawkins is an agnostic atheist. So I’m sorry, but I don’t believe generally in absolutes.

And now to answer your question. I have no idea where the universe came from. It could have been natural or it could have been supernatural. I don’t see why I should accept one alternative over the other.

However, I will assume an absolute to make the argument easier. So I’m going to assume that the universe has only natural explanations. As science has plumbed the mysteries of the universe, we have only found natural explanations of the universe. Not once have we found a supernatural claim to be demonstrably true. It’s always been the God of the gaps style arguments. The more that we find though, the gap continues to shrink. Why should I assume a supernatural origin of the universe if all of our evidence so far points to the contrary of the assumption of supernatural causes?

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ATHEISM. Denial of a personal God who is totally distinct from the world he created. Modern atheism has become so varied and widespread that the Second Vatican council identified no less than eight forms of disbelief under the single term atheismus: “Some people expressly deny the existence of God. Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. Still others admit only such methods of investigation as would make it seem quite meaningless to ask questions about God. Many, trespassing beyond the boundaries of the positive sciences, either contend that everything can be explained by the reasoning process used in such sciences, or, on the contrary, hold that there is no such thing as absolute truth. With others it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny God. Yet others have such a faulty notion of God that when they disown this product of the imagination their denial has no reference to the God of the Gospels. There are also those who never enquire about God; religion never seems to trouble or interest them at all, nor do they try to see why they should bother about it” (Church in the Modern World, I, 19). In the light of this array of infidelity, it was only logical for the Council to declare that atheism is one of the greatest problems facing mankind in the world today. (Etym. Greek atheos, denying the gods, without a god.)

 

[TheInquisitor]

God Bless, I hope you are enjoying our debate ^^

So far I have, it’s been nice and cordial .

You’re applying my statements to our specific universe. I said in one of my earlier posts that when I refer to “our universe” I am referencing existence as a whole, whether is be only this universe, or an exceptionally long series of universes. I assume that it was nothingness because logically it must have been nothingness.

The existence of time demands that there was once something “before” time, otherwise time would have no base point from which we measure it (the start of the effects of entropy). Since it has to have a beginning, there must be a “before.” (A beginning implies a change. Since something physical cannot change before it exists, we must assume that at some point “time” came into existence so that it could change enough to begin.) Since time is an attribute of physics (meaning that it did not exist prior to the existence of physical matter) we must also infer that physical matter had a beginning, and therefore there was something before the physical reality. Since the terms “something” or “nothing” refer to physical properties of matter, anything prior to the physical reality would -have- to be “nothing.”

I’m sorry, you basically lost me. Why does there have to be a beginning to all of time? Including time of the supposed multi verses? I don’t understand the need for a base point. Just pick a point and move from there. I realize this reply is horribly inadequate, but I need you to explain that to me a little more.

Time prevents us from reaching this conclusion. The existence of entropy and decay necessitates a starting point. If there were no starting point, entropy and decay would have no effect because they never would have “started”. Therefore, we would not experience the effects of “time” as we understand them. Since time absolutely exists, and since a starting point is required for any sort of meaningful measurements, we must come to the conclusions that time had a starting point. If it has a starting point, it cannot have “always existed.”

Can you explain to me how entropy and decay has anything to do with the flow of time?

I believe with every fiber of my being that it is absolutely, 100% impossible for a living human to prove or disprove the existence of God; at least, to prove or disprove Him in a manner which would be considered “scientifically sound.” it is pretty much all derived from faith.

I can agree with this statement (I removed one small part from this statement). It seems we have come to two different conclusions based on this premise, though.

argument from morality

I guess I’m not the person to argue this point. I am currently working on a mental solution to this. But the fact is, I do think there is no objective morality. So I can agree with you. We would be (and I think we are) basically screwed when it comes to deciding objective morality. I hope one day in the future that humanity can decide what is “good” in a sense that it’s what everyone wants. But I don’t think we’ll get there with objective morality.

Modern Catholic Dictionary:

ATHEISM. Denial of a personal God who is totally distinct from the world he created. Modern atheism has become so varied and widespread that the Second Vatican council identified no less than eight forms of disbelief under the single term atheismus: “Some people expressly deny the existence of God. Others maintain that man cannot make any assertion whatsoever about Him. Still others admit only such methods of investigation as would make it seem quite meaningless to ask questions about God. Many, trespassing beyond the boundaries of the positive sciences, either contend that everything can be explained by the reasoning process used in such sciences, or, on the contrary, hold that there is no such thing as absolute truth. With others it is their exaggerated idea of man that causes their faith to languish; they are more prone, it would seem, to affirm man than to deny God. Yet others have such a faulty notion of God that when they disown this product of the imagination their denial has no reference to the God of the Gospels. There are also those who never enquire about God; religion never seems to trouble or interest them at all, nor do they try to see why they should bother about it” (Church in the Modern World, I, 19). In the light of this array of infidelity, it was only logical for the Council to declare that atheism is one of the greatest problems facing mankind in the world today. (Etym. Greek atheos, denying the gods, without a god.)

That’s nice that the Catholic dictionary says that. I think I’ll stand by my definition and what many atheists stand by as a definition of what it is.

To add on to that. I don’t deny that there is absolute truth. There could be, but I’m not sure. René Descartes himself said that the devil could be playing games with his brain and make illogical thoughts logical. I can’t say whether or not there is absolute truth because I don’t trust my own logic. I simply use it because it’s the best we have to deal with the world around us.

I hope I addressed everything and that it made sense!

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So far I have, it’s been nice and cordial .

Indeed, I’ve been enjoying myself ^^

I’m sorry, you basically lost me. Why does there have to be a beginning to all of time? Including time of the supposed multi verses? I don’t understand the need for a base point. Just pick a point and move from there. I realize this reply is horribly inadequate, but I need you to explain that to me a little more.

Time is fluid; it’s flow is based on the physical matter around it. I believe it was Einstein who suggested that time was affected by the mass around it, which was later proven. Here’s a very, very short article about a test they did using Telsa’s perfect spheres. Time is also constantly in motion, an effect demonstrated by the fact that everything ages. (Otherwise, processes such as carbon dating would be impossible)

I’m trying to come up with a non-cyclical way of explaining this, but I’m having a lot of trouble; so I apologize for the circular reasoning that follows (Though, in looking at some sources, it appears that even scientists and philosophers have trouble explaining time in a non-cyclical manner, so I don’t feel as bad )

Also, I just want to point out that, by time, I am referencing Newtonian time, that is, time which is a dimension.

Time is a property of matter. It is created by the distortion of space-time by the gravitational force exerted on it by mass.

All physical matter has mass, therefore all physical matter exerts an effect on space-time, therefore altering the flow of time.

All physical matter decays. ( I think science has basically proven this one beyond a shadow of doubt)

Therefore, since time is an aspect of physical matter, and all physical matter decays, it is absolutely necessary that time also decay. Since time decays, it will ultimately have an end point where it ceases to have any measurable (physical) quality.

Now that I’ve shown that time must absolutely have and end, we can infer that it must have absolutely had a beginning, since something cannot end until it has first begun.

The reason that the beginning of time cannot be a subjectively chosen point is because, if it were, it would be different for all entities; all physical elements would have a different point from which they measure the beginning of time based on their mass. Instead, scientific experiment tells us that the beginning of time is a fixed point (some thirteen billion years ago). There is some discrepancy over the exact period due to the gravitational lensing effect, (since we base our observations on the beginning of time on when our specific universe began, we draw our conclusion for how long ago it was from how far “back” in time we see in space. The masses of celestial bodies that pass between us and the “start” of the universe will warp the light slightly, preventing us from having a 100% accurate reading.) but overall, scientists have reached the conclusion that there was a definite, fixed point in the past from which time can be measured (again, this is because there is a definite, fixed point at which matter was created, and time is a property of matter; so the beginning of one is the beginning of the other.)

I hope this helps.

Can you explain to me how entropy and decay has anything to do with the flow of time?

No, not really. I don’t have the brain to explain it. It is a theory that has been put forth by a number of high-level scientists, a primary one being Hawking. Here’s an article about it; the portion about entropy causing time is at the end. Even if entropy does not cause time, my observations about it still stand, because entropy is then the result of time. Time is the aspect of matter which allows change to occur, and without it things would not decay because they wouldn’t be capable of changing.

I can agree with this statement (I removed one small part from this statement). It seems we have come to two different conclusions based on this premise, though.

Glad to see we agree on something.

I guess I’m not the person to argue this point. I am currently working on a mental solution to this. But the fact is, I do think there is no objective morality. So I can agree with you. We would be (and I think we are) basically screwed when it comes to deciding objective morality. I hope one day in the future that humanity can decide what is “good” in a sense that it’s what everyone wants. But I don’t think we’ll get there with objective morality.

Wait, you say there is no objective morality, but that you agree with me? My statement is that there is absolutely an objective morality, and that it is derived from an entity who exists outside of a changeable state (outside of the flow of time). What I am denying is the concept that morality can be subjectively defined.

I’ve also bolded a small part of what you wrote; I would like to discuss it. This is absolutely, 100% impossible. Unless free will is removed from the equation, there will always be dissenting opinions; at which point you get back to it being impossible for a group to define morality due to it’s capacity for change. Additionally, as we’ve seen in… well, pretty much every civilization on Earth; what the group wants is not necessarily moral, nor is it necessarily what’s good for them. To define “good” as an absolute standard (which is what most people would claim “good” is), you have to start from something that is not capable of the change we humans are. Therefore, it is necessary that this base point for “good” be something that exists outside of the physical state (so that it isn’t subject that the changing effects of time.)

continued in the next post…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

…continued from previous post

That’s nice that the Catholic dictionary says that. I think I’ll stand by my definition and what many atheists stand by as a definition of what it is.

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

ag·nos·tic [ag-nos-tik]
noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3.
a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.

Both taken from dictionary.com.

You can call yourself whatever you want, but by definition, you are an agnostic.

To add on to that. I don’t deny that there is absolute truth. There could be, but I’m not sure. René Descartes himself said that the devil could be playing games with his brain and make illogical thoughts logical. I can’t say whether or not there is absolute truth because I don’t trust my own logic. I simply use it because it’s the best we have to deal with the world around us.

I hope I addressed everything and that it made sense!

I will prove to you, 100% that there is an absolute truth.

2+2 = 4

I recognize that numbers and an abstract representation of something we can’t really explain, (go ahead and think about it: Why does math work? I spent a whole night on this one and all I got was a headache ) but the fact remain that, in all instances, 2+2 = 4; despite what a mathematician would tell you about 2+2 = 5 for very large values of 2

This is absolute, 100% undeniable. It is a truth that is set in stone and not subject to change.

Also, why don’t you trust your own logic? Just curious.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Your explanation on time

Ok, I understand this a lot better.

Why is time required to have a beginning if it has an end? I don’t infer that. I see it possible that time could have an eternal past but end abruptly. Sounds strange when I think of it but it doesn’t sound implausble.

It’s interesting to me that you seem to have such a grasp on physics. Why are basing your beliefs on these theories? One thing that I know for certain is that scientists don’t know alot about whats going on. Let’s say these theories are wrong and new ones come up later. I still find it possible that the universe could have been eternal because we simply don’t know enough to make an educated decision on the mater. To reference earlier about time being eternal and then ending, I saw a theory on our universe and it stated that the singularity we can trace our universe back to was there for eternity but then began to expand at one point and will end reletively soon. Who’s to say this isn’t the case? That sounds like a natural and plausible explanation for the events we see and has no need for the supernatural.

Your response to my morality statement

I’m sorry, I think you misunderstood my point. I said that as an Atheist, I think there is no objective morality. You would agree with me that under an atheistic worldview that morals are only subjective, right?

I honestly have no response to your argument for our inability to make a true goodness. I think that all morals are relative. I’m not sure how we will decide what is good and bad in the future. These are the great questions of our time in my opinion, ones that I’m still working on. As for me personally? I find that humanistic values satisfy the life I want to live. I don’t have the ultimate answers. I hope that we can achieve that one day, or at least a compromise of some sort.

definition of atheism

Haha, call me what you will. I’ll be an agnostic in this debate if you want. Just know that it means I don’t actively believe in a god and I don’t claim to have the knowledge of whether or not he exists.

Absolute truth

Well sure, 2 + 2 = 4, that’s a fact. But it’s a fact that we understand with our own logic.

When I consider the fact that we are highly evolved primates who’s only true goal is to eat and have sex, it makes me consider just what our brains can and can’t handle. How do we know there isn’t a reality where logic can’t be used to percieve it and there is no absolute truth there?

This particular thing isn’t something that I’m very good at arguing, just musings in my head.

Also, I feel bad for giving such short responses to your lengthy ones. They are very much appreciated! I’m just not as wordy, lol.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ok, I understand this a lot better.

Why is time required to have a beginning if it has an end? I don’t infer that. I see it possible that time could have an eternal past but end abruptly. Sounds strange when I think of it but it doesn’t sound implausble.

The nature of something eternal is that it neither begins nor ends; eternal is, in essence, being without time. If something ends, that infers that change has taken place. In order for that change to have taken place, that something must be subject to a “flow of event”, ie. time.

It’s interesting to me that you seem to have such a grasp on physics. Why are basing your beliefs on these theories?

My beliefs aren’t based on these theories. I can’t adequately explain why I believe in God. To a certain degree it’s because I grew up Catholic. I stopped practicing in college, and have just now returned in the last year. This return was due to a number of factors, one of which was a deep calling in my soul to return. It’s not really a sensation I can describe, sadly. In addition to this, I had something the manner of a personal revelation which was the final catalyst that brought about my return. The reason I am citing all of these theories is to attempt to show you that even scientific knowledge suggests and exterior cause for our existence.

One thing that I know for certain is that scientists don’t know alot about whats going on. Let’s say these theories are wrong and new ones come up later. I still find it possible that the universe could have been eternal because we simply don’t know enough to make an educated decision on the mater.

I would argue that this isn’t possible because scientist are already able to see what we would classify as "The Beginning’ of the universe… the images are really quite spectacular, if you haven’t seen them, you really should. As I’ve already shown, if something has a beginning, it cannot be eternal.

To reference earlier about time being eternal and then ending, I saw a theory on our universe and it stated that the singularity we can trace our universe back to was there for eternity but then began to expand at one point and will end reletively soon. Who’s to say this isn’t the case? That sounds like a natural and plausible explanation for the events we see and has no need for the supernatural.

I’d point back to the fact that the concept of eternity exists without reference to time; and without time there’s no mechanic through which a series of events can occur that would have cause the singularity to explode. The amount of time the singularity existed may approach infinitely long; but because it has physical form it must have, at some point, been “created” (again, referencing that fact that a physical entity cannot create or destroy matter, only convert it’s form.)

I’m sorry, I think you misunderstood my point. I said that as an Atheist, I think there is no objective morality. You would agree with me that under an atheistic worldview that morals are only subjective, right?

I would agree that atheists think morals are subject. This in no way impacts that fact that they aren’t, be anyways, yes, I would agree to that statement.

I honestly have no response to your argument for our inability to make a true goodness. I think that all morals are relative. I’m not sure how we will decide what is good and bad in the future. These are the great questions of our time in my opinion, ones that I’m still working on. As for me personally? I find that humanistic values satisfy the life I want to live. I don’t have the ultimate answers. I hope that we can achieve that one day, or at least a compromise of some sort.

Let me ask you this. With the exception of people who are mentally disturbed, you agree that all people would state that the rape of a child is immoral. This is not the result of social systems, your upbringing, etc. It is an innate knowledge, something that you know to be absolutely true. Where do you think this knowledge comes from?

Haha, call me what you will. I’ll be an agnostic in this debate if you want. Just know that it means I don’t actively believe in a god and I don’t claim to have the knowledge of whether or not he exists.

you want it to mean that, but it doesn’t either way, we’ll drop that point, since I didn’t make it to begin with >_>

Well sure, 2 + 2 = 4, that’s a fact. But it’s a fact that we understand with our own logic.

When I consider the fact that we are highly evolved primates who’s only true goal is to eat and have sex, it makes me consider just what our brains can and can’t handle. How do we know there isn’t a reality where logic can’t be used to percieve it and there is no absolute truth there?

This particular thing isn’t something that I’m very good at arguing, just musings in my head.

If 2+2 = 4 were a subjective fact liable to change with time, then the entire concept of mathematics would be unable to function. The structure of our universe is based on this fundamental truth (or, even more so, 1+1=2). It absolutely must be true for our universe to function as it does. 2 and 4 are just what we use to represent these numbers; but the fact that the number we call 2, added to itself will always result in the number we call four is a fundamental principle of our universe. It simply is. That is an absolute truth.

Also, I feel bad for giving such short responses to your lengthy ones. They are very much appreciated! I’m just not as wordy, lol.

I’m trying not to be wordy >_> sorry if it’s hard to read.

 

[steve_b]

So Steve, God would send me to hell for something I don’t see as reasonable, but if I did, I would follow him at a moments notice? Harsh.

You said

"My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons."

Name a few reasons

 

[TheInquisitor]

The nature of something eternal is that it neither begins nor ends; eternal is, in essence, being without time. If something ends, that infers that change has taken place. In order for that change to have taken place, that something must be subject to a “flow of event”, ie. time.

Ok, then how about the universe having an infinite past, but a finite future?

My beliefs aren’t based on these theories. I can’t adequately explain why I believe in God. To a certain degree it’s because I grew up Catholic. I stopped practicing in college, and have just now returned in the last year. This return was due to a number of factors, one of which was a deep calling in my soul to return. It’s not really a sensation I can describe, sadly. In addition to this, I had something the manner of a personal revelation which was the final catalyst that brought about my return.

I understand. I took RCIA myself and tried out Catholicism for around 6 months. I was never provided a personal experience no matter how much I prayed. I can see how we have such different conclusions. Maybe one day I’ll get one .

I’d point back to the fact that the concept of eternity exists without reference to time; and without time there’s no mechanic through which a series of events can occur that would have cause the singularity to explode. The amount of time the singularity existed may approach infinitely long; but because it has physical form it must have, at some point, been “created” (again, referencing that fact that a physical entity cannot create or destroy matter, only convert it’s form.)

From my knowledge of things, time actually wasn’t present at the singularity. I’ve heard that asking what was before the big bang is like asking with is north of the north pole. Why couldn’t the Singularity just have been there for an eternity outside of time and then begin to expand at some random point which would then bring it “into” a time flow?

Let me ask you this. With the exception of people who are mentally disturbed, you agree that all people would state that the rape of a child is immoral. This is not the result of social systems, your upbringing, etc. It is an innate knowledge, something that you know to be absolutely true. Where do you think this knowledge comes from?

We’ve been evolved to feel that certain things are wrong to do. I’m not claiming that there is objective morality. I’m just claiming that we don’t do things like kill people because of how we evolved, not because we simply know that it’s wrong. All I can claim is that if it feels wrong that doesn’t mean it objecively is.

If 2+2 = 4 were a subjective fact liable to change with time, then the entire concept of mathematics would be unable to function. The structure of our universe is based on this fundamental truth (or, even more so, 1+1=2). It absolutely must be true for our universe to function as it does. 2 and 4 are just what we use to represent these numbers; but the fact that the number we call 2, added to itself will always result in the number we call four is a fundamental principle of our universe. It simply is. That is an absolute truth.

We as humans all have logic that assesses the matter and agrees that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. I am saying that we can’t know whether or not our logic is completely trustworthy. It’s all we have, so we use it. But I find no reason to think we can 100% derive absolute truth from it (if it exists) and be certain of it.

I’m trying not to be wordy >_> sorry if it’s hard to read.

No worries! I’m fine with wordy, I just didn’t want you to be offended if I respond to a four paragraph response with a sentence, lol.

You said

“My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.”

Name a few reasons

Hey steve b, I can give something a go.

I see no reason to infer considering all of existence and what has happened within it, that there is any reason to accept supernatural explanations for our being.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ok, then how about the universe having an infinite past, but a finite future?

I don’t think that’s possible… As I’ve shown before, any ending must be preceded by a beginning. If something has a beginning, then it is subject to the flow of time and therefore not eternal. It could certainly seem to be infinite in comparison to our minor lifetimes, but if it ends, it has to begin, there’s really no way of getting around that. >_>

I understand. I took RCIA myself and tried out Catholicism for around 6 months. I was never provided a personal experience no matter how much I prayed. I can see how we have such different conclusions. Maybe one day I’ll get one .

Continue to pray for one. Even if you don’t believe God will listen and work with you. “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.”

From my knowledge of things, time actually wasn’t present at the singularity. I’ve heard that asking what was before the big bang is like asking with is north of the north pole. Why couldn’t the Singularity just have been there for an eternity outside of time and then begin to expand at some random point which would then bring it “into” a time flow?

sin·gu·lar·i·ty (snggy-lr-t)
n. pl. sin·gu·lar·i·ties

1. Astrophysics A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

(taken from dictionary.com)

If we’re talking an astrophysical singularity, then I would agree that it was so dense as to prevent the operation of time; This does not mean that there was no time, just that, due to the immense gravity of the singularity, it didn’t affect anything beyond the “borders” of the singularity. (This is similar to the theory that, on passing through the event horizon of a black hole you will still register time at the speed you have always registered it, but to everyone outside of the event horizon, you will appear to move through time faster as you approach the singularity at its center)

If we’re talking about some other form of singularity, you’ll have to define it for me.

Even if this were to be true; time itself would still operate within the singularity; meaning that it would still be subject to the effects of change; and still be required to have a beginning and an end.

If I were to assume your statement was true, that there was absolutely no time in the singularity, and time is a side effect of the force of the explosion which formed our universe (I think I read that theory somewhere, or I could be making it up off the top of my head… but I do think I read it…), it still doesn’t explain the manner through which the singularity came into existence. As a singularity, it is an immense amount of psychical matter condensed down into something smaller than an atom. It is, however, still subject to the rule that matter can neither be created or destroyed; meaning that it could not have formed itself. Even if you accept the theory that it was pulled in from a meta-universe on top of ours, you are left with the same problem of explaining the matter in that universe. You could follow this chain almost infinitely; however, at some point it will be necessary to explain where all that matter came from. At that point, I still make the positive argument that an entity outside of the physical reality (ie. God) is necessary in the formation of matter.

We’ve been evolved to feel that certain things are wrong to do. I’m not claiming that there is objective morality. I’m just claiming that we don’t do things like kill people because of how we evolved, not because we simply know that it’s wrong. All I can claim is that if it feels wrong that doesn’t mean it objecively is.

I argue that it has nothing to do with evolution, but rather is the result of our rational souls. I don’t really have an argument thought out for this one though, because it’s never come up… let me ask you this; if it is purely a result of evolution that we consider that particular action wrong; and assuming that we are at a higher state of evolution than other animals… (an un-measurable assumption, sure, but one that I’m pretty sure most humans would agree with)… then it would be reasonable to assume that the lesser evolved animals would show the same negative traits as us. (in this instance, child murder) While it is true that there are a few animals the will eat their young, this is the result of a survival mechanic, not malicious intent. Thus far, we humans are the only animals who have been shown capable of committing evil purely for the sake of evil. (Evil, in this instance, being actions which are designed to deliberately impede the further development of our species)

If good is a development of evolution, and, in this case evil will be defined as the lack of “good,” then it is logical to conclude that lesser evolved animals will be more prone to commit acts of “evil” than us. So far, history has not played this theory out.

As a result, I would argue that something beyond evolutionary processes is required to define good and bad.

I’m afraid I have to cut myself off here, as I need to be leaving. I won’t have time to proofread this, so please forgive me any grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors I have made. I look forward to continuing this debate tomorrow.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

We as humans all have logic that assesses the matter and agrees that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. I am saying that we can’t know whether or not our logic is completely trustworthy. It’s all we have, so we use it. But I find no reason to think we can 100% derive absolute truth from it (if it exists) and be certain of it.

ok, really quick… Our logic doesn’t not make the universe work; the universe works because the basic principles of mathematics hold true throughout most of it (black holes mess things up, but that’s kinda what they’re there for…) We discovered that 2+2=4, we didn’t conclude it.

God bless

 

[steve_b]

Ok, then how about the universe having an infinite past, but a finite future?

NASA says the universe is 13.7 B years old +/- 2%

That means it didn’t have an infinite past . And because they know it won’t last for eternity, they pretty much have to acknowledge, a designer in here someplace pulling the strings.
TI:

I understand. I took RCIA myself and tried out Catholicism for around 6 months. I was never provided a personal experience no matter how much I prayed. I can see how we have such different conclusions. Maybe one day I’ll get one .

Thomas the apostle wouldn’t believe unless he controlled things on his terms. I guess he was lucky Jesus had other things to do with the apostles before He ascended back to heaven, so He could also give Thomas what he wanted. Namely to see Jesus again, and probe His wounds. Otherwise Thomas wasn’t going to believe, and he wasn’t going to believe his friends either, the other apostles who did see the resurrected Jesus.

It’s instructive, what Jesus said to Thomas. "You believe Thomas because you’ve seen, blessed are those who believe and haven’t seen. Obviously Jesus is impressed with faith, and not impressed with lack of faith.
TI:

From my knowledge of things,* time* actually wasn’t present at the singularity.

Do you buy that? What proof does science provide for that?
TI:

I’ve heard that asking what was before the big bang is like asking with is north of the north pole. Why couldn’t the Singularity just have been there for an eternity outside of time and then begin to expand at some random point which would then bring it “into” a time flow?

That’s not thinking scientifically. Science when being scientific, can only tell us what can be seen and measured.

To your other point, scientific law states, a thing at rest stays at rest unless moved by something. So what exactly would cause singularity to do what it was supposed to do 13.7 B years ago? What’s the cause? And what’s the cause of singularity?
TI:

We as humans all have logic that assesses the matter and agrees that 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4. I am saying that we can’t know whether or not our logic is completely trustworthy. It’s all we have, so we use it. But I find no reason to think we can 100% derive absolute truth from it (if it exists) and be certain of it.

If you’re willing to accept that, then I would suggest you’re on your way to belief in God. We want absolute 100% truth. We won’t rest till we have it. The argument iIMO, that ignores or dismisses this phenominal design we see in the universe, as not having a designer, is completely 100% irrational.
TI:

Hey steve b, I can give something a go.

I see no reason to infer considering all of existence and what has happened within it, that there is any reason to accept supernatural explanations for our being.

Where’s the scientific answer for the origin of all existence that is believable?.Their answer they give is nothing more than their attempt to get people to have faith in science, and have faith that nothing supernatural is behind creation. That’s not science, it’s not scientific, it’s a statement of faith based on hope science is right. And as you say earlier, (paraphrased ) who’s to say science isn’t being completely unscientific on this one and begging all kinds of questions that disqualify their conclusions?

Ask yourself how this works into invincible ignorance

 

[TheInquisitor]

----------------------------------ProdglArchitect

I don’t think that’s possible… As I’ve shown before, any ending must be preceded by a beginning. If something has a beginning, then it is subject to the flow of time and therefore not eternal. It could certainly seem to be infinite in comparison to our minor lifetimes, but if it ends, it has to begin, there’s really no way of getting around that. >_>

Can you explain to me how that is? I really don’t understand how you infer that something with an end HAS to have a finite beginning.

Continue to pray for one. Even if you don’t believe God will listen and work with you. “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief.”

I still pray occasionally and even go to mass here and there.

Singularity response

I still just don’t understand why time and matter necessarily has to have a beginning and an end.

Claim that all of the multiverse matter had to come from somewhere

Where do you get that? Why can’t the chain of multiverses go back infinitely?

Morality

The act of torture and committing evil for it’s own sake is actually something that more intelligent beings do. We can see this with animals like dolphins who torture and do evil things for its own sake.

We don’t see lower evolved animals doing these things because the aren’t as intelligent as us to do so.

ok, really quick… Our logic doesn’t not make the universe work; the universe works because the basic principles of mathematics hold true throughout most of it (black holes mess things up, but that’s kinda what they’re there for…) We discovered that 2+2=4, we didn’t conclude it.

That’s at least what our logical thoughts say .

--------------------------------Steve b

NASA says the universe is 13.7 B years old +/- 2%

That means it didn’t have an infinite past . And because they know it won’t last for eternity, they pretty much have to acknowledge, a designer in here someplace pulling the strings

We can’t be sure. We can only trace back to the moment of expansion. To go beyond that is only theoretical and conjecture at this point. It very well could have an infinite past if something else natural set it off.

Do you buy that? What proof does science provide for that?

Because from what I know, physics basically breaks down at the moment of expansion. Since time is relative to mass, the singularity didn’t have time. science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

I would also like to say, that scientists really have no idea what was “before” the big bang.

That’s not thinking scientifically. Science when being scientific, can only tell us what can be seen and measured.

Since the other poster was putting theoretical alternatives, I was as well. I’m not making any claims. Scientists really don’t know anything in this area from what I know.

To your other point, scientific law states, a thing at rest stays at rest unless moved by something. So what exactly would cause singularity to do what it was supposed to do 13.7 B years ago? What’s the cause? And what’s the cause of singularity?

You might be interested to know that in quantum mechanics, some things do happen without a cause. Newtonian mechanics only goes so far before other forms of physics take over.

What caused the singularity? no idea. But I’m wary to assume it was God or anything else supernatural simply because I don’t know.

If you’re willing to accept that, then I would suggest you’re on your way to belief in God. We want absolute 100% truth. We won’t rest till we have it. The argument iIMO, that ignores or dismisses this phenomenal design we see in the universe, as not having a designer, is completely 100% irrational.

The universe might be cool in how it works, but I see no reason to assume that their is a God or intelligent designer simply because it is well put together. Could you share why I should assume that?

Where’s the scientific answer for the origin of all existence that is believable?.Their answer they give is nothing more than their attempt to get people to have faith in science, and have faith that nothing supernatural is behind creation. That’s not science, it’s not scientific, it’s a statement of faith based on hope science is right. And as you say earlier, (paraphrased ) who’s to say science isn’t being completely unscientific on this one and begging all kinds of questions that disqualify their conclusions?

To be honest, I’m smelling a God of the gaps argument.

I’m not saying something natural was the cause of the Universe. However, I’m not saying something supernatural is the cause either. I simply don’t know and I don’t see a reason to make a claim (especially a supernatural one) when that is the case.

Ask yourself how this works into invincible ignorance

I have been trying to show in my posts that I am nothing more than ignorant.

 

[OxygenMan]

Hello, Inquisitor! I’m sorry I can’t help you out much with science or philosophy; I’m not the brightest bulb and I just don’t have much experience with it. But from personal experience, I can tell you that I have often struggled with doubt. But I advise that what you’re doing is the best. Keep searching for God, don’t give up. Even in my worst times, searching for God always ends up leading me back to a greater understanding.

There’s a website that may help you out quite a bit with the scientific aspects. The bimonthly journal is pretty good, and you should check out his video series!:
doesgodexist.org/

 

[TheInquisitor]

Hello, Inquisitor! I’m sorry I can’t help you out much with science or philosophy; I’m not the brightest bulb and I just don’t have much experience with it. But from personal experience, I can tell you that I have often struggled with doubt. But I advise that what you’re doing is the best. Keep searching for God, don’t give up. Even in my worst times, searching for God always ends up leading me back to a greater understanding.

There’s a website that may help you out quite a bit with the scientific aspects. The bimonthly journal is pretty good, and you should check out his video series!:
doesgodexist.org/

Thanks! I’ll be sure to check out the stuff in the link.

 

[grannymh]

I was just talking to a Maronite rite (I think that’s the term for it) Catholic about Invincible Ignorance.

My position is that I will convert at the drop of a hat to Catholicism. As a matter of fact I would even like to become Catholic. I just see no reason to become one because of logical reasons.

I’m not asking for any of you to make a judgement for me. But let’s assume that Hypothetical me had these exact criteria, would I be invincibly ignorant?

His response was “You have seen a Catholic Church and weren’t forced away with psychical actions to keep you away, you do not have invincible ignorance. You’re going to hell if you don’t convert.”

What do you guys think my state would be in this Hypothetical scenario?

Thanks,
Ryan

sidebar
As a religion per se, Catholicism is the most logical starting with the existence of God. However, you will have to find that out on your own.
:idea:

 

[ProdglArchitect]

----------------------------------ProdglArchitect

Can you explain to me how that is? I really don’t understand how you infer that something with an end HAS to have a finite beginning.

I will try, but I’m not really sure how to make it any simpler than I already have.

Basically, in order for change to occur in physical matter (which, despite it’s infinitely small size, a singularity is still a physical entity), it must be subject to a flow of events (time). In order to be truly eternal, an entity must exist outside of the flow of time (in an unchanging state). Therefore, we can conclude that, because a change took place causing the singularity to explode and form our universe, the singularity must be subject to the effects of time. Therefore, it cannot be eternal.

I don’t think that’s circular logic, I’ve looked it over a few times and it doesn’t appear to be…

#1: Change requires time.

#2:“eternal” is “without time.”

#2: Singularity changed and became universe.

#3: Therefore, singularity is not without time.

#4: Therefore, singularity is not eternal.

I still pray occasionally and even go to mass here and there.

I’m very glad to hear that. Keep at it. A heart open to truth is the most important step to gaining true faith.

I still just don’t understand why time and matter necessarily has to have a beginning and an end.

See the first part of this post… I really don’t think I can explain it any simpler.

#1: Matter has substance, it has mass.
#2: Mass distorts space-time, resulting in what we perceive as the flow of time… also gravity… space time is a funny thing…
#3: Since time is an intrinsic property of matter, matter cannot be eternal becasue anything subject to the flow of time must have an end, due to the effects of entropy (things becomes more disordered the longer they exist… paraphrasing, but that’s the basic, basic explanation)
#4: Anything that has an end must have a beginning, because without a beginning there would be no point from which the effects of entropy could be measured / take effect.
#5: This starting point cannot be some random point from an eternal past, because something that is eternal is not subject to time (the flow of events) and therefore is not subject to change.

I don’t think I can make it any more basic than this, so I’m sorry if this answer does not suffice.

Where do you get that? Why can’t the chain of multiverses go back infinitely?

Infinite implies eternal. Matter is not eternal (see above), therefore, the (theoretical) chain of multiverses cannot be eternal.

The act of torture and committing evil for it’s own sake is actually something that more intelligent beings do. We can see this with animals like dolphins who torture and do evil things for its own sake.

I forgot about dolphins >_> Alright, you got me on this one, though it does not shake my resolve, as we have no actually way of discerning the motives of a dolphin… unless we’ve learned their language… It think there was a lab actually working on that… it was an interesting story, something about measuring which parts of the brain lit up with specific calls…

Anyways, I’ll admit that I don’t have a good comeback for that one. Just don’t forget, an argument stated poorly on my part does not negate the argument. (The Fallacy Fallacy)

We don’t see lower evolved animals doing these things because the aren’t as intelligent as us to do so.

So, you’re implying that evil is a side effect of intelligence, which basically flies in the face of evolutionary theory… In evolution, we (generally) develop along the lines most suited to the survival of out species; there can be bad mutations along the way, but as a whole we get better. What you’ve sated is basically, the further we develop, the more likely we are to elicit traits that harm our species as a whole…

Also, another side not, evil requires the presence of mind to recognize your actions as wrong. I can’t say whether or not dolphins and other animals meet this criteria, but I honestly believe they do not. (Mainly because I believe self-recognition, and the ability to discern good form evil is a byproduct of our rational souls; I know this is borderline cyclical, but I don’t really care )

That’s at least what our logical thoughts say .

I don’t understand what you mean… whether we discovered something or concluded it is not a matter of logic, it’s a matter of how the knowledge came into being…

Also, in your response to stevenB, you posted a link. The link suggests that the effects of time were so slowed by the mass of the singularity as to be non-existent. (note, it wasn’t actually non-existent, just operating too slowly to really do anything.) So, given that time is non-existent; and given that change is a property of time (the flow of events), how, exactly, do you suggest change occurred, allowing the singularity to explode in the big bang? I still make the positive argument that an exterior actor, and entity not subject to time, was necessary for this to occur.

 

[steve_b]

We can’t be sure. We can only trace back to the moment of expansion. To go beyond that is only theoretical and conjecture at this point. It very well could have an infinite past if something else natural set it off.

Because from what I know, physics basically breaks down at the moment of expansion. Since time is relative to mass, the singularity didn’t have time. science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/before-big-bang.htm

I would also like to say, that scientists really have no idea what was “before” the big bang.

Since the other poster was putting theoretical alternatives, I was as well. I’m not making any claims. Scientists really don’t know anything in this area from what I know.

You might be interested to know that in quantum mechanics, some things do happen without a cause.

Quantum mechanics can only measure and observe something that is already there. Everything that we see or can measure, is an effect. Which means There was/is a cause of that.

BTW, Another description for God is the uncaused cause.
TI:

What caused the singularity? no idea. But I’m wary to assume it was God or anything else supernatural simply because I don’t know.

Staying with the topic of invincible ignorance, that statement doesn’t qualify. You’re willing to accept your own assumptions or from science and their assumptions, when it serves your purpose. Why not put them to the same test as you do for Divine revelation?. You’re merely introducing a personal fault into the equation, which makes your ignorance concerning God, not innocent.
TI:

The universe might be cool in how it works, but I see no reason to assume that their is a God or intelligent designer simply because it is well put together. Could you share why I should assume that?

To be honest, I’m smelling a God of the gaps argument.

I see that as an honest statement

 

[TheInquisitor]

--------------------------------------------------------- ProdglArchitect

I will try, but I’m not really sure how to make it any simpler than I already have.

Basically, in order for change to occur in physical matter (which, despite it’s infinitely small size, a singularity is still a physical entity), it must be subject to a flow of events (time). In order to be truly eternal, an entity must exist outside of the flow of time (in an unchanging state). Therefore, we can conclude that, because a change took place causing the singularity to explode and form our universe, the singularity must be subject to the effects of time. Therefore, it cannot be eternal.

I don’t think that’s circular logic, I’ve looked it over a few times and it doesn’t appear to be…

#1: Change requires time.

#2:“eternal” is “without time.”

#2: Singularity changed and became universe.

#3: Therefore, singularity is not without time.

#4: Therefore, singularity is not eternal.

Ok, I’m beginning to understand the disconnect between me and you.

I honestly don’t care about “eternal” as you put it which is only a term you could apply to God from what I know. I only care about the flow of time, which I think can go on without end.

See the first part of this post… I really don’t think I can explain it any simpler.

#1: Matter has substance, it has mass.
#2: Mass distorts space-time, resulting in what we perceive as the flow of time… also gravity… space time is a funny thing…
#3: Since time is an intrinsic property of matter, matter cannot be eternal becasue anything subject to the flow of time must have an end, due to the effects of entropy (things becomes more disordered the longer they exist… paraphrasing, but that’s the basic, basic explanation)
#4: Anything that has an end must have a beginning, because without a beginning there would be no point from which the effects of entropy could be measured / take effect.
#5: This starting point cannot be some random point from an eternal past, because something that is eternal is not subject to time (the flow of events) and therefore is not subject to change.

I don’t think I can make it any more basic than this, so I’m sorry if this answer does not suffice.

Ok, let’s backtrack then. I forgot to work on another point. I’m not sure why I conceeded that time has an end. I’ve never heard of that in physics. Can you explain further how time comes to an end? Even if things get disordered, how does that mean time (change in events) will end? How about a finite beginning point with an infinite future? I don’t mean eternal as you put it, I mean an endless flow of time.

Infinite implies eternal. Matter is not eternal (see above), therefore, the (theoretical) chain of multiverses cannot be eternal.

I am not saying that the multiverse theory is outside of time. Why can’t the multiverse go back and forwards endlessly? I don’t understand how entropy comes in to play with the multiverse either. Overall (I mean no offense), I feel like your using simple logic for something that requires a bit of an open mind. I can’t comprehend an endless multiverse, but does that mean it’s impossible? It’s just like your God who is outside of time. I can’t comprehend that and neither can you (I would imagine). most people understand that it’s a mystery of sorts. Could we say the multiverse might have the same type of explanation?

Anyways, I’ll admit that I don’t have a good comeback for that one. Just don’t forget, an argument stated poorly on my part does not negate the argument. (The Fallacy Fallacy)

I gotchya

So, you’re implying that evil is a side effect of intelligence, which basically flies in the face of evolutionary theory… In evolution, we (generally) develop along the lines most suited to the survival of out species; there can be bad mutations along the way, but as a whole we get better. What you’ve sated is basically, the further we develop, the more likely we are to elicit traits that harm our species as a whole…

Also, another side not, evil requires the presence of mind to recognize your actions as wrong. I can’t say whether or not dolphins and other animals meet this criteria, but I honestly believe they do not. (Mainly because I believe self-recognition, and the ability to discern good form evil is a byproduct of our rational souls; I know this is borderline cyclical, but I don’t really care )

Eh, I’m not evolutionary biologist and not too educated on the matter, that’s just what I hear. I guess it’s logical to say that perhaps these things are a side effect of our high intelligence and not something specifically meant to evolve within us.

I’ll leave you with the cyclical reasoning .

I don’t understand what you mean… whether we discovered something or concluded it is not a matter of logic, it’s a matter of how the knowledge came into being…

I’m willing to give up this conversation if you are. It’s just some wierd musings in my head that I don’t think I can flesh out fully, lol.

You posted a link. The link suggests that the effects of time were so slowed by the mass of the singularity as to be non-existent. (note, it wasn’t actually non-existent, just operating too slowly to really do anything.) So, given that time is non-existent; and given that change is a property of time (the flow of events), how, exactly, do you suggest change occurred, allowing the singularity to explode in the big bang? I still make the positive argument that an exterior actor, and entity not subject to time, was necessary for this to occur.

There are instances in quantum mechanincs where things happen without a cause. Physics is such a large amount of conjecture at this particular point that I don’t make assumptions like you do. I’m just waiting to see where the evidence takes us.

 

[TheInquisitor]

-----------------------------------------------steve b

Quantum mechanics can only measure and observe something that is already there. Everything that we see or can measure, is an effect. Which means There was/is a cause of that.

BTW, Another description for God is the uncaused cause.

Who’s to say there wasn’t an infinite regress of causes?

Staying with the topic of invincible ignorance, that statement doesn’t qualify. You’re willing to accept your own assumptions or from science and their assumptions, when it serves your purpose. Why not put them to the same test as you do for Divine revelation?. You’re merely introducing a personal fault into the equation, which makes your ignorance concerning God, not innocent.

I don’t understand your point. I’m not assuming natural causes OR supernatural causes. I am one to sit back and wait for the answer when the evidence presents itself, not assume one because I don’t have it. God of the gaps is a very faulty argument and one that is foolish to use when figuring out truth.