Question on Invincible Ignorance

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

“Without end” is eternal… I don’t see the distinction you’re making

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.

I can’t, but Einstein can Here’s and article from Scientific America that very, very briefly explains why physics suggests that time will eventually end as a result of the entropy of physical bodies. Interestingly, the theory also suggests that singularities are actually impossible >_>

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.

As things exist, they steadily move towards a state of being unable to support themselves. This is true for all observable physical phenomena, and as such science suggests that it would be true for even those physical phenomena we cannot observe (such as a multiverse).

If all physical things steadily move towards a state of decay, the same would be true for the multiverse, meaning that it would not be possible for it to sustain itself indefinitely.

Please note though, I’m not saying it might not move forward and back endlessly. I’m not God, I’m not sure what he has in mind. For all I know, he could keep it going for a theoretical eternity if he felt like it. What I’m saying is that it absolutely had to have a start, and a starter; otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

Overall (I mean no offense), I feel like your using simple logic for something that requires a bit of an open mind.

No offense taken, I am using fairly simple logic; but that’s because I view simple logic as the best way to explain things… in all honesty, I don’t think there are varying levels of “logical.” Something is either logical, or illogical. To me, the existence of an omnipotent God is the only logical conclusion. You may possibly arrive at a different conclusion, logic isn’t an absolute proof (as I said before, it’s impossible to prove or disprove God, so obviously logic couldn’t absolutely do either )

Although, I do take a bit of offense at you saying I don’t have an open mind. If I didn’t have an open mind, I wouldn’t have had any reason to learn all this stuff about physics theory, multiverse, dolphin language, etc

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?

Our inability to understand it doesn’t make it impossible, physics makes it impossible (matter cannot create itself, as physics tells us, therefore something else must have created the matter which comprises the universe/multiverse). And yeah, I definitely cannot even begin to comprehend God. I can also agree that the (theoretical) multiverse’s explanation may be beyond human capacity to understand; but that doesn’t negate that fact that matter had to come from somewhere outside of the physical realm (it had to be created). I know that this is approaching a God of the Gaps argument, but I still say I am making an affirmative claim that "God’ is the only method through which our ordered universe was capable of coming into being.

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 honestly don’t feel like maintaining this thread of discussion, I think we’re getting a little to broad here, so if you’re willing to drop this one, I am to.

I’ll leave you with the cyclical reasoning .

It’s not truly cyclical, only borderline

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.

Good by me, I’ve basically exhausted my knowledge on the subject anyways.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

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.

Three things:

#1: There are things in physics that happen “without a discernible cause.” That is very, very different from happening with no cause at all, which is impossible within our physical reality (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.)

#2: Physics is pretty well set in stone due to mathematics. There’s a lot of discussion about ways we could be wrong, there’s a lot of discussion about theoretical physics, and there’s a lot of theories about quantum physics, but overall, basic physics (which is what I’ve been referencing for the most part) is pretty solid… except around black holes… because black holes are crazy like that.

#3: Getting back to the initial discussion about Invincible ignorance: Saying that you’re "waiting to see where the evidence takes us " is no different from saying “I’ll find out when I die, so it doesn’t matter” It’s basically a cop-out. You’re waiting for proofs that maybe never come. Saying that “Science will figure it out one day” is as much a statement of faith as our professions to the existence of God.

If your criteria for not believing is simply that it hasn’t been proven yet, then I don’t think invincible ignorance attaches. Like we said at the beginning though, we’re not God, so we have no way of knowing.

 

[TheInquisitor]

If your criteria for not believing is simply that it hasn’t been proven yet, then I don’t think invincible ignorance attaches. Like we said at the beginning though, we’re not God, so we have no way of knowing.

Ok, this, this right here. We can drop the whole discussion because this is the true crux of the matter.

How do you justify believing something without proof? This idea boggles my mind. It’s like you’re just making something up as you go.

Edit* I’m sorry for the abruptness, this just shocks me.

 

[steve_b]

#3: Getting back to the initial discussion about Invincible ignorance: Saying that you’re "waiting to see where the evidence takes us " is no different from saying “I’ll find out when I die, so it doesn’t matter” It’s basically a cop-out. You’re waiting for proofs that maybe never come. Saying that “Science will figure it out one day” is as much a statement of faith as our professions to the existence of God.

good points.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Ok, this, this right here. We can drop the whole discussion because this is the true crux of the matter.

How do you justify believing something without proof? This idea boggles my mind. It’s like you’re just making something up as you go.

Edit* I’m sorry for the abruptness, this just shocks me.

Lol, I thought this would elicit a reaction. I apologize if I offended.

The simple matter is, I don’t believe without proof; my proof just isn’t anything that would be accepted as “scientific.” I have ample proof based on the whole of my life that ultimately leads me to accept the reality of a personal God. I stick with Catholicism because, after looking at the world’s various religion, this one made the most sense.

I firmly believe that God cannot be proven in the scientific sense; but scientific knowledge is only one of a wide range of knowledge types. If you look on the main site, there is a series of articles entitle “Converging and Convincing Proof of God” A few of them go into details about various type of knowledge. They’re a good read, you should consider looking them over.

I know that God exists, but this does not mean I don’t have doubts. Even the apostles, the people closest to him who physically watched his miracles happen, had doubts after his death. (Hence the term “doubting Thomas”) It’s only natural for us, in this age of “science,” to have trouble with concepts that violate our understanding of our reality. However, after much, much thought, I concluded that rejecting the existence of God violated reality in such a manner as to make it impossible to sustain.

As I said before, I can’t really explain it; but I do not believe in absence of proof; I believe in absence of scientific evidence.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Lol, I thought this would elicit a reaction. I apologize if I offended.

The simple matter is, I don’t believe without proof; my proof just isn’t anything that would be accepted as “scientific.” I have ample proof based on the whole of my life that ultimately leads me to accept the reality of a personal God. I stick with Catholicism because, after looking at the world’s various religion, this one made the most sense.

I firmly believe that God cannot be proven in the scientific sense; but scientific knowledge is only one of a wide range of knowledge types. If you look on the main site, there is a series of articles entitle “Converging and Convincing Proof of God” A few of them go into details about various type of knowledge. They’re a good read, you should consider looking them over.

I know that God exists, but this does not mean I don’t have doubts. Even the apostles, the people closest to him who physically watched his miracles happen, had doubts after his death. (Hence the term “doubting Thomas”) It’s only natural for us, in this age of “science,” to have trouble with concepts that violate our understanding of our reality. However, after much, much thought, I concluded that rejecting the existence of God violated reality in such a manner as to make it impossible to sustain.

As I said before, I can’t really explain it; but I do not believe in absence of proof; I believe in absence of scientific evidence.

I understand where your coming from. This is how most people believe in the supernatural.

You might have to respect that I either have never had a true personal experience, or have no reason to accept to the ones given to me. I ask you to pray for me, but I just can’t see it. Choosing to believe in something without 100% certainty is something I just can’t do and I would be surprised if a God condemned me for that.

Edit* To tie into the original meaning of the post, that is the reason I thought I might be under the category of invincible ignorance. Without 100% certainty, I just can’t do it. My stomach lurches at the thought of accepting something without it.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I understand where your coming from. This is how most people believe in the supernatural.

Indeed; supernatural things can never be proven, so that’s the only way to accept them.

You might have to respect that I either have never had a true personal experience, or have no reason to accept to the ones given to me. I ask you to pray for me, but I just can’t see it.

I actually have been, and will continue to. I am glad that you are the type of person who doesn’t take offense at that.

Choosing to believe in something without 100% certainty is something I just can’t do and I would be surprised if a God condemned me for that.

Edit* To tie into the original meaning of the post, that is the reason I thought I might be under the category of invincible ignorance. Without 100% certainty, I just can’t do it. My stomach lurches at the thought of accepting something without it.

Sorry, and no offense intended, but I’m calling BS on this one. You believe in a lot of things without 100% proof: certain things are good for you, certain things are bad; scientists are telling us the truth about this that and the other; that you are actually self-aware; that dolphins are intelligent enough to commit “evil”…

You believe things because you accept that the people who are telling them to you are intelligent enough to know what they’re talking about. In reality, as an atheist with a relativistic world view (no absolutes), by your own admonition, you don’t believe anything.

 

[TheInquisitor]

Sorry, and no offense intended, but I’m calling BS on this one. You believe in a lot of things without 100% proof: certain things are good for you, certain things are bad; scientists are telling us the truth about this that and the other; that you are actually self-aware; that dolphins are intelligent enough to commit “evil”…

You believe things because you accept that the people who are telling them to you are intelligent enough to know what they’re talking about. In reality, as an atheist with a relativistic world view (no absolutes), by your own admonition, you don’t believe anything.

Fair enough

you don’t believe anything

Bingo, I hardly believe in my own existence. I simply assume empiricism so I can get somewhere in the world, I don’t believe it though.

Can you blame me though? What reason is there to believe anything as a 100% fact?

Edit* this is the reason I can’t, for example, say the apostles creed, because I just don’t know in reality.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Fair enough

Bingo, I hardly believe in my own existence. I simply assume empiricism so I can get somewhere in the world, I don’t believe it though.

Can you blame me though? What reason is there to believe anything as a 100% fact?

Edit* this is the reason I can’t, for example, say the apostles creed, because I just don’t know in reality.

Sorry, but I think this is where our debate is going to break down. I cannot accept that you don’t recognize you own existence as fact; the concept seems ludicrous to me, so I don’t know how to respond to it >_>

 

[TheInquisitor]

Sorry, but I think this is where our debate is going to break down. I cannot accept that you don’t recognize you own existence as fact; the concept seems ludicrous to me, so I don’t know how to respond to it >_>

I did say hardly, I find it hard to argue the point of whether or not I exist. I pretty much believe I exist. We can argue it from a solipsistic view point if you want.

But if you want to end it here, that’s fine. It was fun .

Edit* Forgot to add, what do you say about invincible ignorance for me now?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I did say hardly, I find it hard to argue the point of whether or not I exist. I pretty much believe I exist. We can argue it from a solipsistic view point if you want.

Heh, sorry, That’s a debate I’d rather not get into, because I’ve tried it before and it never ended. The fact that I can’t prove to you I exist, and you can’t prove to me that you exist makes the entire arguemnt pretty much worthless.

But if you want to end it here, that’s fine. It was fun .

lol, yeah, I think we’re drawing to a close. It was quite fun though. You really should consider reading those articles I talked about though.

Edit* Forgot to add, what do you say about invincible ignorance for me now?

To be honest, I know very little about the requirements for invincible ignorance. I will say though, that I hope you do, because I have a number of friends with very similar view points on life. (I’ve had a lot of practice at this particular debate form )

 

[TheInquisitor]

Heh, sorry, That’s a debate I’d rather not get into, because I’ve tried it before and it never ended. The fact that I can’t prove to you I exist, and you can’t prove to me that you exist makes the entire arguemnt pretty much worthless.

lol, yeah, I think we’re drawing to a close. It was quite fun though. You really should consider reading those articles I talked about though.

To be honest, I know very little about the requirements for invincible ignorance. I will say though, that I hope you do, because I have a number of friends with very similar view points on life. (I’ve had a lot of practice at this particular debate form )

Well thanks for your time and thoughts ! I’ll be sure to read those articles you recommended.

 

[steve_b]

to steve b

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

I think it’s safe to say

• since causes don’t cause themselves.
• and there is no infinite regress of causes from anything finite.
• then once science regresses to singularity, (singularity being a hypothesis I might add), then it would be uncientific for science to say singularity which is a hypothesis, always existed. Why? Because science says the universe is finite. It will end. Therefore, since everything in the universe came from singularity, singularity then is finite, not infinite, not eternal.

iow, singularity, had a beginning. So who caused it?
TI:

I don’t understand your point. I’m not assuming natural causes OR supernatural causes.

What other kind of cause is there?
TI:

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.

But you’re not neutral. You’ve taken sides. You’ve made a choice. Can you honestly say “through no fault of your own” you’ve made your choice without introducing willful error on your part?

That’s by definition, not invincible ignorance