Skeptic Questions

[Lief_Erikson]

No. You are wrong.

You do not understand the burden of proof.

The burden of proof remains with the one making the claim.

Never upon the one questioning it.

Extraordinary claims…

Require what?

Sorry, I am not as cogent tonight as I have been celebrating St Pat’s… sorry

Did you read my posts addressed to you, on the previous page?

 

[kbachler]

Yes, on the empiricists. They have never disproven what was demonstrated to be the case either with respect to the nature of causality nor with the existence of a prime mover.

I don’t understand your statement. What has been demonstrated to be the case either with respect to the nature of causality nor with the existence of a prime mover?

 

[kbachler]

M-Theory has some serious criticisms out there and not just by the theist community either. It has no evidence whatsoever, and it actually can’t explain something coming from nothing!

I understand that M-theory has critics. Rightfully so. It has a long way to go before being a good theory of explanation. The energy levels required to prove aspects of M-theory are so high that it may be largely unprovable for many years, although recently there have been some proposals that may begin to start testing some aspects M-theory.

But you are incorrect. M-theory can show that something can come from nothing. And in fact, we realize today that the very idea of thinking of “something coming from nothing” as a problem, is in itself a problem.

 

[kbachler]

I think you may be looking at what efficient causality is backwards, i.e., in a modern sense of the term cause.

No, I am looking at it correctly.

Efficient causality does not begin with a given: ‘that there is an efficient cause’ but rather it begins with the observable fact of motion. If something is in motion, then it has an efficient cause. This is the essence of the principle “all that is moving is being moved by another.” There is no temporal assumption of succession. Existence itself is a type of motion and must, therefore, have an efficient cause. In a sense, you can say that Efficient causality does not assume the conclusion, rather, it is the conclusion.

I understand the argument. The argument commits petitio principii. In effect, it has assumptions that are unstated that one is trying not to state. In effect, the way you present the argument, you make an efficient cause tautological to being in motion. Hence, you have assumed the prime mover if there is any motion.

M-Theory and others like it do not begin to address the question of the so-called ‘unmoved mover’ simply because their notion of an ‘unmoved mover’ is temporal or at least successive. They cannot pierce, with empirical methodology, into a realm of existence that does not have a time variable. Even when it is tried they still characterize things in terms of prior to t=0. However, this is a mischaracterization of the position. Even very good non-Athiest contemporary philosophers like Swineburne can’t seem to wrap their minds around classical notions of causality. It is too immaterial for them to work with when empirical assumptions are made.

I guess my point is that empirical methodology cannot, by its very nature, prove or disprove efficient causality because it cannot prove or disprove ‘being’.

The above is confused on several fronts.

First, all motion is temporal. It is impossible to have motion without time.

Second, M-theory and related mathematical theories can already show that something mathematically can arise from nothing. Hence, the concept of an unmoved mover is unnecessary. There is no logic reason to even look for such a mover.

Third, NO LOGIC can pierce in any definitive sense into a universe without a time variable. The most we can say, for example, is that it is absurd to assume that in such a place, that something cannot arise from nothing, because whatever laws of physics are at work in such a place (if any) are very different than the laws that are at work here, and therefore to assume that the same mathematics or logic work in such a place is a very poor assumption indeed. There is no experiential reason for such an assumption.

Fourth, in the end, ALL assumptions in some form depend on what is empirical and its relation to belief.

 

[Pieman333272]

But you are incorrect. M-theory can show that something can come from nothing. And in fact, we realize today that the very idea of thinking of “something coming from nothing” as a problem, is in itself a problem.

No. M-Theory requires gravity as well as some objective laws of physics, to be eternal. That is not nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing.

 

[kbachler]

No. M-Theory requires gravity as well as some objective laws of physics, to be eternal. That is not nothing. Only nothing can come from nothing.

Sorry, your understanding is not correct. To begin with, the logic that “Only nothing can come from nothing” is based on the logic that we have developed as rational beings in response to a universe that we have experienced primarily in terms of classical mechanics. Thus, our normal thought flows in the same direction as though principles. Relativity and QED both challenged this.

In fact, there is no reason why something cannot magically appear from nothing because the physical laws that tell us that only nothing can come from nothing were not in existence in that nothingness. The laws as we know them came about only after at least some symmetries were broken; possibly there is only one set of laws regarding the 4 (now 3) fundamental forces of nature, but we do not know that, and we do not know what - if any - laws existed prior to that grand unified set of laws.

Further, even in QED it can be shown that something can come from nothing. This is further possible to show in M-theory. The homogeneous solutions to field equations are in fact nothing but can generally give rise to something (because by being nothing they don’t change the result).

A simple way to look at it is this (to illustrate the concept.) Assume there is nothing. Why can’t that nothing suddenly break into (for example) +5 and -5? (That is, into something and its anti-something?) The answer is that - there isn’t a reason. It CAN do this. And this, in a very simplistic analogy, is the argument for why this can happen.

This isn’t to say that the universe did in fact come from nothing. It is only to point out that using the assumption that something cannot come from nothing as a proof of God is incorrect, as it can be shown that something can, in fact, come from nothing.

M-theory does not require that the laws of physics be eternal; it works if there were a big bang and the laws are then derived. Also, it works in both the scenarios of gravity coming internally (although there are challenges with that) or externally (requires more assumptions, but it seems to work better.)

 

[Pieman333272]

Sorry, your understanding is not correct. To begin with, the logic that “Only nothing can come from nothing” is based on the logic that we have developed as rational beings in response to a universe that we have experienced primarily in terms of classical mechanics. Thus, our normal thought flows in the same direction as though principles. Relativity and QED both challenged this.

In fact, there is no reason why something cannot magically appear from nothing because the physical laws that tell us that only nothing can come from nothing were not in existence in that nothingness. The laws as we know them came about only after at least some symmetries were broken; possibly there is only one set of laws regarding the 4 (now 3) fundamental forces of nature, but we do not know that, and we do not know what - if any - laws existed prior to that grand unified set of laws.

Further, even in QED it can be shown that something can come from nothing. This is further possible to show in M-theory. The homogeneous solutions to field equations are in fact nothing but can generally give rise to something (because by being nothing they don’t change the result).

A simple way to look at it is this (to illustrate the concept.) Assume there is nothing. Why can’t that nothing suddenly break into (for example) +5 and -5? (That is, into something and its anti-something?) The answer is that - there isn’t a reason. It CAN do this. And this, in a very simplistic analogy, is the argument for why this can happen.

This isn’t to say that the universe did in fact come from nothing. It is only to point out that using the assumption that something cannot come from nothing as a proof of God is incorrect, as it can be shown that something can, in fact, come from nothing.

M-theory does not require that the laws of physics be eternal; it works if there were a big bang and the laws are then derived. Also, it works in both the scenarios of gravity coming internally (although there are challenges with that) or externally (requires more assumptions, but it seems to work better.)

No real-deal M-Theorist actually says true nothing comes first. It’s always gravity, or something like that. Also, physics shows that if a negitive and positive of the same value are with one another, they cancel each other out. So something comes from nothing for only a brief millisecond.

 

[StrawberryJam]

GOD BLESS YOU, STRAWBERRYJAM! May God greatly bless you and all your loved ones! May He pour out His love upon you all and shower you with graces and every heavenly help and support, filling you in your walk in life with joy and peace.

My post directly above this one is for you as well.

I am so happy for you, because God knows and loves you so, so well, and has died to give you Heaven!

Thank you for being so kind to me. I did read this post, but did not reply because I don’t know how to reply to this.
I am glad that you are a person who is filled with joy and love, and this brings the message of Jesus to all people.
While I don’t believe I do have a pull to many elements of the Catholic faith. I find it hard at times to feel this way.
Thank you again for your kindness to me as a questioner

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello Catholics,

My faith is best described as a tossing and turning of ideas. I have come to a point where I believe that there is a definitely a God but I question whether He is truly knowable. If God is knowable, how is it that we know it is through His Son, Jesus Christ? How do we know it’s not through the world (Pantheism) or through another monotheistic lens (Judaism or Islam)? If God is not knowable, then I would have to consider myself to be agnostic or a deist, but I haven’t reached that point yet nor do I know if I will. How do we jump from there being a God to it being the Holy Trinity? Is it all based on faith? If it is I don’t see why some Catholics get so upset with others when those people feel like it’s sincerely jumping into the abyss based on faith. Not to be confused with those who want to deny God in order to do as they please.

John 14:7-9
7 If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8 Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” 9 Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?

 

[kbachler]

No real-deal M-Theorist actually says true nothing comes first. It’s always gravity, or something like that. Also, physics shows that if a negitive and positive of the same value are with one another, they cancel each other out. So something comes from nothing for only a brief millisecond.

Again, M-theorists do agree that nothing could come first. And your statement: “Also, physics shows that if a negitive and positive of the same value are with one another, they cancel each other out. So something comes from nothing for only a brief millisecond.” Is also not correct. The point is that they previously cancelled each other out and then re-emerged. Typically they will come into contact and again annihilate. However, Hawking radiation is an example where this does not happen, for example. Additionally, prior to Big Bang, time has no clear meaning, and IF the same laws of physics hold (which isn’t clear) an anti-particle can be viewed as a normal particle moving backwards in time. In a period where time has no clear meaning, this can raise possibilities about something coming from nothing.

Finally, again you’re relying on laws of physics to support your argument, when in all likelihood those laws did not exist during that time.

 

[Pieman333272]

Again, M-theorists do agree that nothing could come first. And your statement: “Also, physics shows that if a negitive and positive of the same value are with one another, they cancel each other out. So something comes from nothing for only a brief millisecond.” Is also not correct. The point is that they previously cancelled each other out and then re-emerged. Typically they will come into contact and again annihilate. However, Hawking radiation is an example where this does not happen, for example. Additionally, prior to Big Bang, time has no clear meaning, and IF the same laws of physics hold (which isn’t clear) an anti-particle can be viewed as a normal particle moving backwards in time. In a period where time has no clear meaning, this can raise possibilities about something coming from nothing.

Finally, again you’re relying on laws of physics to support your argument, when in all likelihood those laws did not exist during that time.

Please cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper on M-Theory that says something can come from nothing.

And the instant a + and a - come into existence they would cancel each other out. The instant the BB made both matter and antimatter they started to cancel each other out.

 

[kbachler]

Please cite a peer-reviewed scientific paper on M-Theory that says something can come from nothing.

And the instant a + and a - come into existence they would cancel each other out. The instant the BB made both matter and antimatter they started to cancel each other out.

In the first case, I will have to look for you. I’m quoting second hand from other lectures. I believe one lecture was by Hawking on cosmology and m-theory based on the work he did with Jim Hartell.

In the second case, they don’t have to cancel out, because they don’t come in contact with each other, because something impacts the density and distribution. This is why we have a primarily matter universe, rather than a primarily anti-matter universe. It is essentially the same explanation for Hawking radiation.

For example, the laws of physics in the universe appear to be the same everywhere. This implies that at one point all parts of the universe were close together. But based on the idea that matter and anti-matter annihilate, there shouldn’t be anything, right? But we see that even the cosmic background radiation shows uneven distribution and density. With the combination of that, and of rapid inflation, we can show that there isn’t time for everything to come into contact and annihilate.

 

[StrawberryJam]

In the first case, I will have to look for you. I’m quoting second hand from other lectures. I believe one lecture was by Hawking on cosmology and m-theory based on the work he did with Jim Hartell.

In the second case, they don’t have to cancel out, because they don’t come in contact with each other, because something impacts the density and distribution. This is why we have a primarily matter universe, rather than a primarily anti-matter universe. It is essentially the same explanation for Hawking radiation.

For example, the laws of physics in the universe appear to be the same everywhere. This implies that at one point all parts of the universe were close together. But based on the idea that matter and anti-matter annihilate, there shouldn’t be anything, right? But we see that even the cosmic background radiation shows uneven distribution and density. With the combination of that, and of rapid inflation, **we can show that there isn’t time **for everything to come into contact and annihilate.

How can this be shown my friend?

 

[kbachler]

How can this be shown my friend?

It’s shown both mathematically and in terms of reality. We exist, therefore the pieces didn’t come into contact and annihilate, because if they did, we wouldn’t be here.

This was a problem with Big Bang until it was figured out. The initial model indicated that there should have been such an annihilation - but we knew there wasn’t since we exist. Hence, we knew that while the initial model explained many things, that the model was not complete because of this problem.

Eventually an explanation was found, was tested mathematically, and was backed up through observable evidence (fluctuations in the cosmic background radiation.) We didn’t initially know of the fluctuations because our earlier technology wasn’t sufficient to detect them. Once we realized we needed to look for an explanation, better technology was used, and the variation in temperatures in the cosmic background radiation were confirmed.

 

[mosher]

No, I am looking at it correctly.

Your statements below demonstrate the contrary. I don’t mean to be argumentative but this is an essential point in the dialogue between us metaphysicians and empiricists. I tend to think that the problem is two-fold: 1) lack of an understanding of the classical (or robust) notion of cause, and 2) lack of a robust notion of time (which is related to problem #1. But, both of these are essentially problems in understanding the notion of ‘substance.’ In essence, the pre-understanding, that most people bring to this discussion is conditioned by Cartesian and post-Cartesian notions of substance. This ends up causing the two groups to argue to cross purposes because they are not speaking about the same thing.

I understand the argument. The argument commits petitio principii. In effect, it has assumptions that are unstated that one is trying not to state. In effect, the way you present the argument, you make an efficient cause tautological to being in motion. Hence, you have assumed the prime mover if there is any motion.\quote]

I could demonstrate how this is not the case in a separate post. The belief that this is what is happening (particularly in Aquinas) is usually based in the critique of the 5 ways by Anthony Kenny. Good man, but he misses the suitability of the argument.
kbachler;7663172:

The above is confused on several fronts.

First, all motion is temporal. It is impossible to have motion without time.

Why is this the case? To be affected is a type of motion and it is without time. The classical example is knowledge. The process of understanding something is temporal but when that process reaches its terminus it is now ‘knowledge of’ and that motion in the soul is without time but, it is still a movement. This is one brief example where we can see that effect and cause happen at exactly the same moment without any successive time.

Second, M-theory and related mathematical theories can already show that something mathematically can arise from nothing. Hence, the concept of an unmoved mover is unnecessary. There is no logic reason to even look for such a mover.

This is logically true. However, the point you provide does not touch the issue of a prime mover. Even with a prime mover the universe arises from nothing. There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction of the prime mover is, in some way, material. However, this is not what is being asserted.

Third, NO LOGIC can pierce in any definitive sense into a universe without a time variable. The most we can say, for example, is that it is absurd to assume that in such a place, that something cannot arise from nothing, because whatever laws of physics are at work in such a place (if any) are very different than the laws that are at work here, and therefore to assume that the same mathematics or logic work in such a place is a very poor assumption indeed. There is no experiential reason for such an assumption.

Fourth, in the end, ALL assumptions in some form depend on what is empirical and its relation to belief.

Your notion of Logic is in some areas too strong (with relation to the natural world) and in some places to weak (in its explanatory power). I think that when you say ‘Logic’ you mean ‘Modern Logic’ which is unfortunately lacking in the task of dealing with this this issue. In other words, its the wrong tool for the job.

 

[mosher]

No. You are wrong.

You do not understand the burden of proof.

The burden of proof remains with the one making the claim.

Never upon the one questioning it.

Extraordinary claims…

Require what?

Sorry, I am not as cogent tonight as I have been celebrating St Pat’s… sorry

I hope you had a good time.

You are correct, of course. However, you are only correct if we are playing by the rules of the scientific method. However, deductive reasoning doesn’t follow these rules. It has its own set of rules and methods for treating propositions. In this method of argumentation it is incumbent upon the challenger to deny a proposition and provide legitimate justification for the denial of that proposition. Then the defender must respond in such a way that shows that his logic is sound or be must concede the point and revise his position.

 

[kbachler]

Your statements below demonstrate the contrary. I don’t mean to be argumentative but this is an essential point in the dialogue between us metaphysicians and empiricists. I tend to think that the problem is two-fold: 1) lack of an understanding of the classical (or robust) notion of cause, and 2) lack of a robust notion of time (which is related to problem #1. But, both of these are essentially problems in understanding the notion of ‘substance.’ In essence, the pre-understanding, that most people bring to this discussion is conditioned by Cartesian and post-Cartesian notions of substance. This ends up causing the two groups to argue to cross purposes because they are not speaking about the same thing.

I state again that I do understand the notion. The point I’ve made is that the notion is not correct.

It’s not that I don’t understand it, its that I disagree with it, because it isn’t correct.

kbachler;7663172:

I understand the argument. The argument commits petitio principii. In effect, it has assumptions that are unstated that one is trying not to state. In effect, the way you present the argument, you make an efficient cause tautological to being in motion. Hence, you have assumed the prime mover if there is any motion.\quote]

I could demonstrate how this is not the case in a separate post. The belief that this is what is happening (particularly in Aquinas) is usually based in the critique of the 5 ways by Anthony Kenny. Good man, but he misses the suitability of the argument.

Sorry, its not a belief. It’s demonstrable. All you have to do is look at the definitions of terms and then compare them to the argument and the argument unravels. This is why philosophy advances.

Why is this the case? To be affected is a type of motion and it is without time.

This is a false statement. Motion occurs ONLY within time. Show a demonstration of motion without time. Your statement “to be affected is a type of motion and it is without time” is a meaningless utterance (and I mean that literally, not argumentatively.) What does it mean to be affected? How do you show something is affected? If you can’t show that it is affected, then how do you know it is affected? This can be answered only if one can demonstrate measurement; “The thing WAS there, NOW it is here.” That’s temporal.

The classical example is knowledge. The process of understanding something is temporal but when that process reaches its terminus it is now ‘knowledge of’ and that motion in the soul is without time but, it is still a movement. "

The above is another meaningless statement - actually a series of such. But particularly consider “and that motion in the soul” - you’ve just committed petitio principii. You’ve defined knowledge as motion and then concluded that its motion. Well DUH!
mosher;7680428:

This is one brief example where we can see that effect and cause happen at exactly the same moment without any successive time.

We see no such thing. Your argument above is not logical.

This is logically true. However, the point you provide does not touch the issue of a prime mover. Even with a prime mover the universe arises from nothing. There is no contradiction. There is only a contradiction of the prime mover is, in some way, material. However, this is not what is being asserted.

First, the above is not logically true. My argument did not touch on prime mover because the concept of an external prime move is unnecessary (Occam’s Razor).

I BELIEVE in a prime mover, I cannot prove one. There is no proof of a prime mover. It isn’t necessary to assume that something external to the universe set it in motion. IT COULD BE, but COULD is not PROOF, its speculation.

Your notion of Logic is in some areas too strong (with relation to the natural world) and in some places to weak (in its explanatory power). I think that when you say ‘Logic’ you mean ‘Modern Logic’ which is unfortunately lacking in the task of dealing with this this issue. In other words, its the wrong tool for the job.

Modern (formal) logic is the correct tool because it is demonstrable that the older forms, starting with Aristotle and lasting up to Frege/Russell (yes even past Boole) have demonstrable shortcomings. The self-referential flaw is an old one, and you seem to relish in having it. I don’t understand why.