Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
Banky wrote:Since you believe that it must have a beginning AND an end, then I see no contradiciton in your model.
I think there is a logical contradiction if one were to believe that that the universe must have a beginning, yet will continue infintely forward. It's not that it isn't possible to have a beginning with no end, but that the logic that leads one to believe that a beginning is necessary in not consistent with the idea that having no end is possible.
I fail to see where the logical contradiction or inconsistency is. I would be interested if you could elaborate on the logic that leads one to believe that a beginning is necessary, and why such logic is inconsistent with the idea that having no end is possible? If you believe such logic is inconsistent with believing the end can be open, then you ought to know the arguments that are used in such logic. I dare say you are not familiar with such logic at all, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
I will simply state here that to believe time regresses infinitely into the past is to believe in an actual infinite, since in order to reach the present time would have needed to have traversed from negative infinity. In the case of moving toward an infinite limit, such as time having an endless limit, such a limit (the infinite) is never actually reached and therefore this is only a potential infinite.
I fail to see where the logical contradiction or inconsistency is. I would be interested if you could elaborate on the logic that leads one to believe that a beginning is necessary, and why such logic is inconsistent with the idea that having no end is possible? If you believe such logic is inconsistent with believing the end can be open, then you ought to know the arguments that are used in such logic.
I already made my case. See my post about reversing your perception of time.
I dare say you are not familiar with such logic at all, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Take your prime mover argument. Reverse your perception of time. If the universe must have a beginning, then it must have an end.
From here I'll leave the burden squarely on your shoulders. In our last discussion you, on at least three occasions, stated my position as the complete opposite of what it was and then chose to argue against it.....ironically refuting your own position in the process. I have no reason to believe that it won't happen again.
If you could prove a creator, then why don't the most intelligent and educated scientists and mathmaticians in the world agree? They don't seem to quibble over the Pythagorean Theorem.
I fail to see where the logical contradiction or inconsistency is. I would be interested if you could elaborate on the logic that leads one to believe that a beginning is necessary, and why such logic is inconsistent with the idea that having no end is possible? If you believe such logic is inconsistent with believing the end can be open, then you ought to know the arguments that are used in such logic.
I already made my case. See my post about reversing your perception of time.
You stated what you believe, but it did not cover the logic one uses to say a beginning is necessary. Since you said such logic is inconsistent with the belief that a continually progressing series is possible, then I am interested to hear where such logic is inconsistent.
So can you please tell me the logical arguments often used to reason that a beginning to time is necessary, and how such logic makes one inconsistent if they do not also believe an end is necessary?
You made the claim that "there is a logical contradiction if one were to believe that that the universe must have a beginning, yet will continue infintely forward... the logic that leads one to believe that a beginning is necessary i not consistent with the idea that having no end is possible." I just want to see your claims backed up rather than it be simply stated that such logic makes holding both beliefs inconsistent.
Interesting discussion.
I suppose we are defining the "universe" as the totallity of physical matter and not necessarily space itself. Is the current speed of expansion sufficient to overcome its own eventual gravitational attraction? Yes as it seems the expansion is NOT slowing: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0210c.html
So now the question is, how can the expansion stop and thus have a finite end? So it seems we are left with a paradoxical universe that had a beginning according to Big Bang but is apparently expanding beyond its ability to collapse and thus have an end.
But it seems the Bible gives us another possibility:
2 Peter 3 (New International Version)
10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a]
11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.
This suggests the universe as we know it [i.e. the heavens] will come to a fiery end, followed by a new beginning. It is actually part of our Christian hope.
I just want to see your claims backed up rather than it be simply stated that such logic makes holding both beliefs inconsistent.
I can't just state something and let that stand on its own, yet you can simply state "The universe is temporal but God is not......God can become temporal when he wants but the universe can't.....something has to create the universe but nothing has to create God...etc.etc." How very ironic. It seems that you hold me to a higher standard of reasoning than you hold for yourself.
I've already pointed out the flaws in your "proof of God." Maybe you can explain why God has blessed you with the gift of understanding such logic leading to proof of his existence (specifically the Christian version) yet most of the rest of society is left with nothing more than confusing messages and must rely on "faith" (of which 2/3 of the planet have been persuaded to folllow a different faith).
Most scientists can agree on evidence pointing to global warming, but for some strange reason "proof of God" isn't as widely accepted. Go figure.
I just want to see your claims backed up rather than it be simply stated that such logic makes holding both beliefs inconsistent.
I can't just state something and let that stand on its own, yet you can simply state "The universe is temporal but God is not......God can become temporal when he wants but the universe can't.....something has to create the universe but nothing has to create God...etc.etc." How very ironic. It seems that you hold me to a higher standard of reasoning than you hold for yourself.
Actually I have provided syllogistic style arguments.
To challenge the obvious existence of time in the universe, I see you need to challenge the very existence of temporality itself. And if this is what you want to do, then I can get quite deep as to why I believe in the existence of temporality if you would like. On the other hand, not to sound like a snob, but I would prefer to discuss such an issue with someone familiar with the philosophical discussions surrounding time. Otherwise I see I am simply wasting my time. *pun intended*
If you do believe temporality does not exist in our universe however, I would be interested to know your answer to the following question. When you did something yesterday (lets say woke up), that was what, in the present? The future? The past?
Hello, I'm back from my suspension for "attacking Christian beliefs." Personally I never thought I was, but I don't make the rules.
I'll be short, since the response to your question has already been provided in another thread.
To challenge the obvious existence of time in the universe, I see you need to challenge the very existence of temporality itself. And if this is what you want to do, then I can get quite deep as to why I believe in the existence of temporality if you would like. On the other hand, not to sound like a snob, but I would prefer to discuss such an issue with someone familiar with the philosophical discussions surrounding time. Otherwise I see I am simply wasting my time.
Actually I don't think "snob" is the right word. What you are doing here is making a deliberate ad hominum attack, which is really a cheap debate tactic but does little to reveal the correct answer. Personal attacks on my knowledge or intelligence might mean something if I just didn't do so darned well in school!
Like I said, the answer is simple and was provided in this quote. Take a wild guess who wrote it and what the context was:
So back to the initial question - what justification is there for believing our senses are giving us a correct view of reality? It seems the Materialist (as described above) is forced to make the unproven assumption that our perceptions are giving us a correct view of truth or reality. Yet, such a position is clearly self-refuting (contradictory) if it declares that only that which is physical, observable, measurable ought be used as a basis to establish truth or reality. For such a position must first bring the unproven assumption that our perceptions are giving us a correct view of truth or reality. So while some might refuse to think so, it seems no position is void of an element of "faith" for everyone needs to accept logically unprovable assumptions.
If you don't want to "waste your *time*", then I suggest you first address how you can apply a double standard to your reasoning. On one hand our sense give us the correct view of reality when it comes to the perception of time, yet do not give us the correct view of reality when it comes to our perception of God? How exactly do you know this?
Banky, my reasoning strongly aligns with yours. However I agree with Kurieou when he suggested it would be wise to familiarize yourself with the philisophical discussions surrounding time.
No one doubts your intelligence, but I am sure you would agree that if both parties were to use a common language (phlisophy) and both are familiar with current knowledge on the subject it would result in a much more fruitful discussion.
Just my two cents.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
However I agree with Kurieou when he suggested it would be wise to familiarize yourself with the philisophical discussions surrounding time.
There was no suggestion that I become educated on the subject. It was a statement that discussing it with me would be a waste of time. The implication is that he knows what he is talking about, yet is unable to communicate exactly what that is because I don't have the knowledge base to formulate an understanding.
Again, its yet another double standard. I can't just "say something," yet he can do so with the disclaimer, "I really know this stuff and you don't.....I don't want to waste my time."
Maybe if I was so educated on the subject I would understand why my senses are giving me the correct view of time but not the correct view of a supernatural diety. I am completely open to the idea, but I need a little more than "believe me, I know what I'm talking about."
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Banky, my reasoning strongly aligns with yours. However I agree with Kurieou when he suggested it would be wise to familiarize yourself with the philisophical discussions surrounding time.
No one doubts your intelligence, but I am sure you would agree that if both parties were to use a common language (phlisophy) and both are familiar with current knowledge on the subject it would result in a much more fruitful discussion.
Just my two cents.
Exactly. This is all I meant by my last post and BGood perhaps put it more nicely.
I also do not care to win any argument so ad hominems are not my style. I like discussing certain topics, and it is just fruitless to discuss something where no real communication is happening.
In scientific and popular publications we can see an often usage
of a word infinity.
For example: the space is infinite, time is infinite, and the Universe is infinite.
But anywhere it is not explained, how exactly the infinity is connected with
concreteness.
One understands infinity as the opportunity to move infinitely on a straight line,
never encountering any barrier.
The other understands infinity as an opportunity to increase the numbers infinitely
(atoms, stars, galaxies, the moments of time) 1, 2.3, … … … etc,
always adding one point to the number already counted.
G. Hegel has named such understanding of infinity as “bad, unreasonable”.
Hegel thought, that in contrast to "bad" should exist also the
“Reasonable infinity “.By his opinion, the REASONABLE INFINITY
should be something positive and concrete.
At the same time he demanded to specify the following:
1) A connection between the infinite and the concrete.
2) A connection of infinity not only with quantity, but also with quality.
3) To explain an inconsistent character between the infinity and
the concreteness.
For thousands of years people used a concept of God in order
to explain this interrelation.
But Hegel would like to find more rational, scientific explanation.
And how does the modern science refer to this question?
The concept of infinite, eternal, absolute means nothing
to a scientists, causes them bewilderment and "horror".
They do not understand how they could draw any real,
concrete conclusions from these characteristics.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not be conformed
to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
They think out various mathematical cunnings
(method of renormalization) .
Whether it is possible to give a specific
characterization to a REASONABLE INFINITY?
Yes. It is possible.
The initial point of a modern physics is a doctrine about
the existence of only one single world.
But simultaneously there is a claim, which says
that alongside with a material world there is a Vacuum.
And that the Physics is first of all a Vacuum, Absolute Zero.
Thus there are two worlds:
A MATERIAL World and a VACUUM World.
The Material World is basically known to us.
And what is VACUUM, the VACUUM world?
Which particles exist in there?
What are their geometrical and physical parameters?
How do these particles show themselves?
Which way are they connected to a material being?
The understanding of the connection between the INFINITE
and a concrete MATERIAL WORLD begins with these questions.
The understanding of the INNER WORLD begins with these questions.
The unity of scientific and religious consciousness begins with these questions.
===============
...the problems with science is hugely acceptance and defensiveness of words.
Considerably that everything that have a beginning must have an end i think we have a wide range of possible values to express our believes.However that the universe expands is an acceptable theory by my standard,but of infinite expansivity of the universe I think not I would like us to clearly define our minds clearly each time..
