The Causation Argument

[Learner]

In no particular Order.

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

So, you're missing the point. Or evading it.

I have a sheet of paper. It's been beside my printer for about two years. We don't go thru printer paper all that fast.
Anyway, i tale it, right now, 0838 on July 10, 2020, and fold it into a paper airplane. So, now a plane exists. But the component that the plane was made from existed well before the plane. I need to make a shopping list for dinner. So, i unfold the plane, press it flat, and start writing. Time now. So the plane existed for 3 minutes. When did the plane begin to exist, though?
0838? Two years ago? Three years ago, when they cut down the tree? Twenty three years ago, when they planted the tree?

After that, i have no idea what you're trying to say....

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately? It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way. We are discussing propositions (last few posts) which seems sensible enough to me, whether you like/agree with it or not. Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

Back in a bit

 

[atrib]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately? It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way. We are discussing propositions (last few posts) which seems sensible enough to me, whether you like/agree with it or not. Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

Why don't you state the full argument - first cause, KCA or whatever you want to call - along with the supporting premises, and we can explain why the argument is flawed. Assuming you are still talking about the first cause argument, because with your garbled posts it is hard to tell.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately?

you SAY that matter and energy are tge same thing, then explain why you treat them as different things, ducking the question posed to you, and making a hash of the others' claims.

What the fuck IS your 'point,' then?

It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way.

except your side seems to consistently take 'uncertainty' as a failure.

Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

how about any sign that you actually do understand, then? Care to play that game? SHOW your level of understanding, rather than assert it?

 

[skepticalbip]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...

If there is a point then I am certainly missing it. And, since it appears that everyone is, maybe you should consider that the problem is that you are not offering your point (if there is one) understandably. In effect, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

[atrib]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...

If there is a point then I am certainly missing it. And, since it appears that everyone is, maybe you should consider that the problem is that you are not offering your point (if there is one) understandably. In effect, what exactly are you trying to say?

Its hard to have a meaningful discussion when the other party doesn't even understand the topic of discussion. I keep asking Learner to state his argument so we can get on the same page, but he won't do that either, probably because he doesn't understand how the first cause argument works.

 

[atrib]

... snip ...
And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

All the many cosmological models are speculative. All have serious problems. None are known to be true. Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

This is not true. Our model of the universe starting from Planck Time, the Big Bang Theory and General Relativity, is robust, well understood and well tested, since we have empirical observations from this period and the laws of nature have remained consistent during this period. But prior to Planck time, the universe had very different properties, and our models of this very early state, like Guth's inflation theory is still considered somewhat speculative. We have a lot more observations in the 50 years since Guth first proposed his inflation model (like the WMAP and Planck observational data), and we know a lot more today than we did 50 years ago, but we cannot cannot conclusively verify these models using empirical observations.

 

[steve_bank]

Is a person that cannot understand such a simple simple point being willfully ignorant, sincerely ignorant, brainwashed, or? Whatever the case it certainly speaks of scientific illiteracy. My feeble attempt to discuss how anything "ends" obviously failed. Feynman's take was that a person doesn't need to understand the labels so long as they understand the underlying principle and mechanism, that labels are just for communication. Religious creationists objectify labels without ever understanding the substance of a discussion.

It looks like everyones missing the point here...deliberately? It's agreed and understood that there is no scientific study that tells you either way. We are discussing propositions (last few posts) which seems sensible enough to me, whether you like/agree with it or not. Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

Back in a bit

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.

One can my expiation of the universe is....

But then it has to be modeled using SI units. set of equations. First the math is peer reviewed. Then attempts ae made to compare model to observation. Anything else is philosophical speculate and religion. Christian creationism does not require any validation, only speculation based on Genesis.

There has always been competing theories of cosmology in science. The fact that there is not universal agreement is not a failure of science. It is a matter of cosmology not being experimentally validated.

I expect that you understand the difference between science and religion, but are unwilling to admit it.

Somewhere around the 15th century a Jewish rabbi and philosopher Moses Memonimedes wrote in A Guide For The Perplexed that when science and scripture conflict interpretation of scriptura must change.

The issue is old, the most well known case being Galileo.

In the 18th century when Ben Franklin demented lightning was a natural electrical phenomena it caused a theological crisis. Lighting coming from above was thought to be from god. If it hit your barn it was a sign from god.

The use of lightning rods to protect your house was considered by some Christians an abomination, an offense to god.


When Galileo shoed people there were mountains on he moon through his telescope some said hey saw nothing.

Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

 

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...
And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

All the many cosmological models are speculative. All have serious problems. None are known to be true. Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

This is not true. Our model of the universe starting from Planck Time, the Big Bang Theory and General Relativity, is robust, well understood and well tested, since we have empirical observations from this period and the laws of nature have remained consistent during this period. But prior to Planck time, the universe had very different properties, and our models of this very early state, like Guth's inflation theory is still considered somewhat speculative. We have a lot more observations in the 50 years since Guth first proposed his inflation model (like the WMAP and Planck observational data), and we know a lot more today than we did 50 years ago, but we cannot cannot conclusively verify these models using empirical observations.

To get to Planck time, Guth's inflation is needed (inflation is very speculative). And, as you say, inflation has problems. Inflation was offered as a fix of the Big Bang model. The problem it was to 'fix' was that the universe should not be as uniform as it was observed to be (inflation solved that). The Big Bang model (without inflation) also would mean that the universe was much older which is belied by the dearth of old stars... inflation solved the age problem too.

However, inflation creates more problems than it solves. The uniformity problem was solved by having expansion begin, then pause until everything reached density, energy, and thermal equilibrium (to solve the communication problem) then superluminal inflation to almost the current volume of the Universe... then inflation everywhere stops and normal expansion continues. Question; how did that first pause happen, how did inflation occur after that pause, how did inflation stop uniformly across the universe (the communication problem writ huge.) Then, there is the superluminal inflation to deal with.

I agree that the Big Bang (minus inflation, but minus inflation leaves the problems inflation solved) is the most robust we have of cosmology models because it is written to fit observation. But other cosmological models are trying to push well beyond current observations.

ETA:
The major problem I have with inflation is that it is an ad hoc assertion... sorta a "then a miracle happens". Modeling should be supported with physics.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

So, you're missing the point. Or evading it.

I have a sheet of paper. It's been beside my printer for about two years. We don't go thru printer paper all that fast.
Anyway, i tale it, right now, 0838 on July 10, 2020, and fold it into a paper airplane. So, now a plane exists. But the component that the plane was made from existed well before the plane. I need to make a shopping list for dinner. So, i unfold the plane, press it flat, and start writing. Time now. So the plane existed for 3 minutes. When did the plane begin to exist, though?
0838? Two years ago? Three years ago, when they cut down the tree? Twenty three years ago, when they planted the tree?...

That's a very long-winded way of saying you think the universe has always existed. sheesh!

The folded piece of paper used to be unfolded and flat...before that it was a tree...before that it was carbon/chlorophyll/sunlight...before the sun there was a singularity and before that...blah blah blah


Lion IRC's impression of a past eternal, perpetual motion universe.



Lion IRC's impression of two past-eternal inanimate objects struggling with each other.



Beethoven NOT causing his 5th symphony to come into existence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone know what point Lion is trying to make?

 

[skepticalbip]

Does anyone know what point Lion is trying to make?

It seems that the point is, "anyone who does not accept the Genesis story as absolute truth is an idiot."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone know what point Lion is trying to make?

It seems that the point is, "anyone who does not accept the Genesis story as absolute truth is an idiot."

Well, it's not a total loss for me. Now I know that the ice cubes in my freezer - religiously speaking - are "past eternal." I think that's pretty cool. When I have some gin and seltzer I'm not just going to have it over ice, I'm going to have it over "past eternal" ice.

Keith's paper in his printer is also "past eternal." Toilet paper is "past eternal."

Hallelujah, Jesus!

 

[atrib]

Does anyone know what point Lion is trying to make?

I think he is saying that perpetual motion machines cannot exist, but God is a perpetual motion machine. He doesn't say it in so many words, because that would expose the inherent fallacy of his position, but that is the gist of it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Does anyone know what point Lion is trying to make?

I think he is saying that perpetual motion machines cannot exist, but God is a perpetual motion machine. He doesn't say it in so many words, because that would expose the inherent fallacy of his position, but that is the gist of it.

So it's just another religious contradiction. Only invisible, magical perpetual motion machines can be real because there aren't any real "real" ones. Understood.

It's that need for magic. Religious behavior is based on spookiness, ghosts and magic, same as santa belief.

 

[steve_bank]

Perpetual motion as referenced from, thermodynamics apples only to processes in a bounded system, like a car engine or refrigerator.

In a limitless universe no matter or energy can be lost. Only form changes and the observable staes of the unverse are by a tiny point in an ever changing reality.

Interesting how a theist uses science metaphors when talking about god.

The bible does not say what god is. But they believe he, she, or it exists. God becomes whatever they need it to be.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's a very long-winded way of saying you think the universe has always existed.

Huh. well, more succinct verbiage seemed to fail in conveying the actual idea. But long-winded has apparently failed, too.

Because, Lion, i do NOT think the universe has always existed. You misunderstand me.

I do think that if the creationist is going to point to something inside the universe and say, "There! That is an example of what we can base our understanding of the beginning of the universe on," they shouldn't pick an example that's bass-ackwards to the conclusion they're trying to force.

Everything around us that we can percieve is made of eternal parts, mixein endless diversity, like using Pirates of the Caribbean Legos to build a Ghostbusters adventure in The Haunted Rum Cellar.

Pointing to reconfiguring elements and claiming 'this shows how we understand gawd started everything' just makes you look stupider than when young earthers try to explain sedimentary layers.

 

[Lion IRC]

...i do NOT think the universe has always existed

Great. Looks like we agree on something at last.

So...either it came into existence spontaneously (magic) or was caused.

If caused, then caused by deliberate intent/agency OR a necessary, forced caused (which itself requires a prior explanation ---> infinite regression?)

Was it inevitable that the universe came into existence?

 

[skepticalbip]

Perpetual motion as referenced from, thermodynamics apples only to processes in a bounded system, like a car engine or refrigerator.

In a limitless universe no matter or energy can be lost. Only form changes and the observable staes of the unverse are by a tiny point in an ever changing reality.

Interesting how a theist uses science metaphors when talking about god.

The bible does not say what god is. But they believe he, she, or it exists. God becomes whatever they need it to be.

That's not entirely true. Moses got to see god's arse as god walked away.

 

[Learner]

The matter/energy that stars and planets are made of predates the formation of the stars and planets. Did you really not know that?

I did know but thanks for "stating the obvious."

You are confused as usual, and not making any sense. The pattern that Steve is talking about relates to the emergent behavior of very complex neural networks, like human brains, that gives rise to things like memory. Human brains are made of matter/energy, and things like memories exist as patterns of arrangements of neurons within these brains.

Different coversation. You should take the credit where its due (read the OP)

 

[Learner]

...i do NOT think the universe has always existed

Great. Looks like we agree on something at last.

So...either it came into existence spontaneously (magic) or was caused.

If caused, then caused by deliberate intent/agency OR a necessary, forced caused (which itself requires a prior explanation ---> infinite regression?)

Was it inevitable that the universe came into existence?

Ah ....so Kieth doesn't believe in the universe has always existed (Well noted Lion).

 

[Learner]

you SAY that matter and energy are tge same thing, then explain why you treat them as different things, ducking the question posed to you, and making a hash of the others' claims.

What the fuck IS your 'point,' then? except your side seems to consistently take 'uncertainty' as a failure.

Best put away your "don't understand" joker cards, (I know enough to discuss with)so we can advance a little as I really can't be bothered to play that game.

how about any sign that you actually do understand, then? Care to play that game? SHOW your level of understanding, rather than assert it?

You and Atrib seem to be suggesting previously... "energy is synominous to paper planes and trees," regardless of when trees existed, which sounded a tad confusing (garbled logic-like) saying that the earth, planets and paper planes are the same thing as energy in the context to Steves OP below....

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

My point was that the physical universe ...the SOLID stuff we observe with our eyes has a beginning ...has a date or when it was formed because SCIENCE SAYS SO. Energy however WITHOUT physical form has always existed was my proposition - unless one takes to N Krauss who once said IIRC "the universe came about because of the number zero or the letter O?".

As I said previously, both of you confusingly (language) seem to make the point; responding with the notion that... "energy is synominous (exists) with paper planes and planets" which is not the same as .... paper planes and planets are synominous to energy e.g. paper planes and planets did NOT always exist!!!!


Only now you mention you don't take to the line above in bold, so I am wondering if Atrib is arguing from the concept. So that there is no misunderstanding before responding further.


Better to have garbled posts than garbled common-sense (I say half jestingly).

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anyone can google up a scientific discussion and answer to the question, "Are energy and matter the same thing?"

 

[Learner]

Anyone can google up a scientific discussion and answer to the question, "Are energy and matter the same thing?"

Playing your joker card again because of the notion that 'trees and planets are quite young in the cosmic realm of things?'

*Edit: Which was the point Lion was making BTW.

 

[Learner]

The 'science is atheist' rant again. A recurring FOX News theme.

'atheist science' like evolution and cosmology. Science out to destroy Christianity. Science as another imagined Christian enemy doing the work of Satan.

Says the CNN.

CNN is the most trusted source in the world. I know because they say so. Kind of like what Chrustians say about god, bible is truth.

Yet again you sidestep the question.

Make up your mind. Which one do you want to be? CNN or FOX? You have first choice.

 

[Learner]

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.


Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

Evolution proposes more from the point of life ALREADY existing oddly enough. With that line of thought, rather than Creation V Evolution ... I wondering how interesting Abiogenesis V Creation would be? Both concepts are in the context of coming into existence.

You'd think that the two would be combined - stating strongly under one proposition, presenting the FULL picture of the existence of life. (if not for being over cautious perhaps)

We often hear atheists always keeping seperate the two with phrases like " You don't know anything about evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" blah blah blah. Ah ...so NO starting-point then, one must be asking? A little like magic or faith?

 

[none]

how many numbers are there?

 

[Learner]

Not sure what you mean? May not be in context with your Q but Professor and mathematician John Lennox says "numbers aren't real things."

 

[none]

Not sure what you mean? May not be in context with your Q but Professor and mathematician John Lennox says "numbers aren't real things."

do they help us understand real things?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Anyone can google up a scientific discussion and answer to the question, "Are energy and matter the same thing?"

Playing your joker card again because of the notion that 'trees and planets are quite young in the cosmic realm of things?'

*Edit: Which was the point Lion was making BTW.

Interesting that you would make the joker analogy. We know the joker is a magic card, beats everything else in the deck. Typical religious thinking.

Evolution proposes more from the point of life ALREADY existing oddly enough. With that line of thought, rather than Creation V Evolution ... I wondering how interesting Abiogenesis V Creation would be? Both concepts are in the context of coming into existence.

You'd think that the two would be combined - stating strongly under one proposition, presenting the FULL picture of the existence of life. (if not for being over cautious perhaps)

We often hear atheists always keeping seperate the two with phrases like " You don't know anything about evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" blah blah blah. Ah ...so NO starting-point then, one must be asking? A little like magic or faith?

Religious creationism proposes more from the point of magic already existing, not so oddly enough. But of course religion has nothing to do with magic, blah blah blah. It all just happens because of an invisible magic person living in the sky. Not so different from a jolly prson in a red suit living with elves and flying reindeer at the north pole. Granted religious tales are a bit more developed but have the same genesis and appeal.

Not sure what you mean? May not be in context with your Q but Professor and mathematician John Lennox says "numbers aren't real things."

do they help us understand real things?

Do they help us understand religious magic? No. But tales of religious magic use lots of numbers.

And in most aspects of the christian religion three equals one. That's pretty interesting.

 

[none]

I did find it curios that the universe is modeled as expanding faster than the speed of light at some time...

 

[Learner]

Religious creationism proposes more from the point of magic already existing, not so oddly enough. But of course religion has nothing to do with magic, blah blah blah. It all just happens because of an invisible magic person living in the sky. Not so different from a jolly prson in a red suit living with elves and flying reindeer at the north pole. Granted religious tales are a bit more developed but have the same genesis and appeal.

Welcome aboard?



See you later debater

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ah ....so Kieth doesn't believe in the universe has always existed (Well noted Lion).

'Well noted?' Thst's what i said! It's not like he had to read between the lines, or recall a post i made in 2006.
AND he still jumps to the wrong fucking conclusion!

God, you guys are dense.

I stated that i do not believe that the universe is eternal. That does not mean that i have discounted that as a possibility.
My entire point was that you (alla youse, and all us) have no real experience with anything BEGINNING. Just changing. Changing state, changing position, changing relative velocity...
And if you think we can leverage our experiences up to the scale of the Entire Universe, the only honest answer must reflect that: constant reorganization of eternal components. It's what we see, what we experience, what we understand of everyfuckingthing around us.

I haven't been convinced that this IS the truth, but it's the only one you can draw from the evidence you guys want to start from.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You and Atrib seem to be suggesting previously... "energy is synominous to paper planes and trees," regardless of when trees existed, which sounded a tad confusing (garbled logic-like) saying that the earth, planets and paper planes are the same thing as energy in the context to Steves OP below....

Synonymous? No. Just configurations in a chain. The energy making up the atoms exists with foreverness, but we name different configurations they form and fade.
Not sure where you see a logical failure.

My point was that the physical universe ...the SOLID stuff we observe with our eyes has a beginning ...has a date or when it was formed because SCIENCE SAYS SO.

yeah, but i think you're drawing the wrong undersranding from that word, 'beginning.'

Energy however WITHOUT physical form has always existed

Okay, see? Scoence doesn't say that

As I said previously, both of you confusingly (language) seem to make the point; responding with the notion that... "energy is synominous (exists) with paper planes and planets" which is not the same as .... paper planes and planets are synominous to energy e.g. paper planes and planets did NOT always exist!!!!

This is why we keep saying you don't actually understand what you're talking about.

The physical atoms are made of energy, meaning no matter what form it takes, it's the same, everlasting thing.

Only now you mention you don't take to the line above in bold,

ah. There's your failure.
I do take to the bolded line above. If you are going to argue that everything needs a creator, you need to explain where the creators came from. And making a Special Case argument for your favorite creator is cheating.

so I am wondering if Atrib is arguing from the concept. So that there is no misunderstanding before responding further.


Better to have garbled posts than garbled common-sense (I say half jestingly).

Half? You're always trying to be cute. It seems to fail....a lot.

My position on the origin of the universe is I DO NOT KNOW. But my position on Special Case arguments is Flag On The Play.
My position on "everything that begins to exist needs a cause" is "can you show me three examples of something that begins to exist?"

 

[Wiploc]

My point was that the physical universe ...the SOLID stuff we observe with our eyes has a beginning ...has a date or when it was formed because SCIENCE SAYS SO.

Citation needed.

I know that Asimov and Hawking said the universe began at the big bang, but they both immediately nuanced that claim by saying something like, "At least we can say that was the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."

I know that internet Christians like to claim that science says the big bang was the beginning, but they never, in my experience, offer reason to believe them. One of them was so insistent that I decided to investigate on my own. I went up on campus; I found a cosmologist; I asked him whether it was true that there is a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang.

He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

My impression, then, is that there is no such scientific consensus.

But that was years ago. I'm open to new information. If you know of a recent consensus, I'm all ears.

Energy however WITHOUT physical form has always existed was my proposition

Energy is always in one form or another. Maybe you mean that some of it isn't in palpable form? Other forms are still physical. Physics isn't just about things you can stub your toe on.

I have trouble with claims that something has always existed. I'm not sure it means what people hope it does. Let's consider a hotdog and last Thursday-ism.

Today is Saturday. For the purpose of this argument, we stipulate that the universe began at noon on Thursday, two days ago. This hotdog has existed for the whole time, a little less than forty-eight hours. Before the hotdog, there was nothing, not even time.

Is it fair to say that this forty-seven hour old hotdog always existed? Yes, because there was never a time when it didn't exist. It always existed. It existed at all times. Always. Just like the Christian gods.

(And, also just like the Christian gods, the hotdog began last Thursday.)

When I attempt to convey the concept that many people use always existed to mean, I wind up using awkward locutions like, "infinitely old and unbegun."

 

[abaddon]

Ya'll are arguing with persons who think of the universe the way we'd think of a room full of furniture. You say it's all a flux of eternal energy taking temporal forms. That's going to fly right over their heads because all they know is that for furniture to exist, someone had to make it and the date of manufacture was its beginning. It's "kinds" kind of thinking.

The other doofbaggery is the insistent either/or thinking. They want to use the law of the excluded middle to force answers to happen. But, how to do that when there are more options than anyone can even know? Well, "more options that can even be known" is beyond the capacity of persons insistent on an answer. So for them questions always devolve to two options. In the case of cosmology it's either 1) you think the universe began in which case you "reasonably" must join them in the intuited impulse "then someone made it" because of how "obvious" it is. Or 2) you think the universe is eternal in which case you unreasonably must ignore their intuited impulse that "infinite regress" can't happen.

 

[steve_bank]

Not sure what you mean? May not be in context with your Q but Professor and mathematician John Lennox says "numbers aren't real things."

UH OH..I feel another one of those lengthy derails coming over whether numbers are real or not. That is philosophy and metaphysics, not physical science.

An old saying, a little knowledge is dangerous.

The Big Bang Theory winds the clock back to a theoretical initial condition from which all we see today came about from atoms to galaxies. How the initial condition came to be is not addressed, it is imagined as a kind of hot soup which led to the BB. The theory does not address ultimate origins.

Form of mass energy changes with time. The universe is changing. We observe for infinitesimally small part of changes.

Pick any point in our observable universe and everything moves away from everything, as if we are in an explosion. Hence the tag Big Bang.

As to 'solid stuff', that concept was blown apart by quantum physics starting in the late 19th century. The idea that what we call solid is actually comprised of tiny atoms separated by vast relative inter atomic spaces was actually a big deal philosophically at the time.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.


Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

Evolution proposes more from the point of life ALREADY existing oddly enough. With that line of thought, rather than Creation V Evolution ... I wondering how interesting Abiogenesis V Creation would be? Both concepts are in the context of coming into existence.

You'd think that the two would be combined - stating strongly under one proposition, presenting the FULL picture of the existence of life. (if not for being over cautious perhaps)

We often hear atheists always keeping seperate the two with phrases like " You don't know anything about evolution because abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution" blah blah blah. Ah ...so NO starting-point then, one must be asking? A little like magic or faith?

Theory Of Evolution covers a broad area. It combines archeology, physics, chemistry, biology and other areas to support the conclusion that life devoted on Earth form simple organisms to life today through mutation and natural selection.

Some of it is theoretical, some is demonstrated. Mutation and natural selection can be seen and tested.

Abiogenis today as dar as I now has no working theory. Experimnts have creted amino acids in sea water with simulated lightning strikes.

There is also Brownian Motion. All it takes is the right chemicals togter with an energy sources for a self replication reaction to occur.

Deep sea violinic vents where organisms live on chemicals from the vents..

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not sure what you mean? May not be in context with your Q but Professor and mathematician John Lennox says "numbers aren't real things."

UH OH..I feel another one of those lengthy derails coming over whether numbers are real or not. That is philosophy and metaphysics, not physical science.

An old saying, a little knowledge is dangerous.

The Big Bang Theory winds the clock back to a theoretical initial condition from which all we see today came about from atoms to galaxies. How the initial condition came to be is not addressed, it is imagined as a kind of hot soup which led to the BB. The theory does not address ultimate origins.

Form of mass energy changes with time. The universe is changing. We observe for infinitesimally small part of changes.

Pick any point in our observable universe and everything moves away from everything, as if we are in an explosion. Hence the tag Big Bang.

As to 'solid stuff', that concept was blown apart by quantum physics starting in the late 19th century. The idea that what we call solid is actually comprised of tiny atoms separated by vast relative inter atomic spaces was actually a big deal philosophically at the time.

I was trying to get remez to address his claim about beginnings and the KCA. Most people think about the BB as happening 14 billion years ago. It's still happening, proof that the universe has no observable end. If something has no end it has no beginning, something real that is, not ghosts and magic.

 

[skepticalbip]

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.


Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

Evolution proposes more from the point of life ALREADY existing oddly enough. With that line of thought, rather than Creation V Evolution ... I wondering how interesting Abiogenesis V Creation would be? Both concepts are in the context of coming into existence.

Is this an example of creationists shifting goal posts (yet again) after being soundly defeated on their old stand?
The creation vs. evolution debate became a big cause for creationists with the publication of Darwin's work on evolution. Creationist's staunch stand was that species do not change over time (no evolution), that god created everything exactly as we see it today. They even defended that position in court during the Scopes trial.

After finally realizing how stupid their original stand was, they shifted their goal posts on anti-evolution to allowing for "micro-evolution" but not what they labeled "macro-evolution"... that a species can evolve (a little) but that they can not evolve into a new species because god created "kinds".

Most have given up on this ridiculous goal post position too (though certainly not all) because it is demonstrably wrong. And now the goal posts are being positioned so that they are not even discussing evolution but denying abiogenesis.

 

[hyzer]

Most have given up on this ridiculous goal post position too (though certainly not all) because it is demonstrably wrong. And now the goal posts are being positioned so that they are not even discussing evolution but denying abiogenesis.

And the funny thing is, creationists support abiogenesis - they will readily agree that one day there wasn't life on Earth and the next day there was . . .

 

[Learner]

My point was that the physical universe ...the SOLID stuff we observe with our eyes has a beginning ...has a date or when it was formed because SCIENCE SAYS SO.

Citation needed.

I know that Asimov and Hawking said the universe began at the big bang, but they both immediately nuanced that claim by saying something like, "At least we can say that was the beginning, since we don't know what happened before that."

I know that internet Christians like to claim that science says the big bang was the beginning, but they never, in my experience, offer reason to believe them. One of them was so insistent that I decided to investigate on my own. I went up on campus; I found a cosmologist; I asked him whether it was true that there is a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang.

He said, "Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang."

My impression, then, is that there is no such scientific consensus.

But that was years ago. I'm open to new information. If you know of a recent consensus, I'm all ears.

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you. Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ; having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

Nobody knows what happened before the BB, well yes sure. I DID say science can't prove either way in one of my posts. SO what's left then to discuss but propose an idea - being opened to suggestion but ....someone (plural) thought to mstakenly pretend this was my debate for a claim or sumink. It started well . I'll explain further in the other posts I need to address.

 

[Lion IRC]

I did find it curios that the universe is modeled as expanding faster than the speed of light at some time...

Yep and...

We long assumed particles carrying the force of gravity couldn't have mass. That's wrong

https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/1281529473867882496?s=20

 

[Keith&Co.]

You'll be surprised to hear that I'm not a proponent of the Big Bang as it may seem to you.

this is my shocked face. :/

 

[Lion IRC]

Ah ....so Keith doesn't believe in the universe has always existed (Well noted Lion).

'Well noted?' Thst's what i said! It's not like he had to read between the lines, or recall a post i made in 2006.
AND he still jumps to the wrong fucking conclusion!

God, you guys are dense.

Dont be rude.
Learner said "well noted".
Taking notice of what you wrote. Would you rather have what you say ignored?

I stated that i do not believe that the universe is eternal.

Yes, and I said I agree with you.
Whats wrong with me saying THAT?
So dont be rude!

That does not mean that i have discounted that as a possibility.

Nobody said you HAD "discounted" any other possibility.
So dont be rude!

 

[Keith&Co.]

And now the goal posts are being positioned so that they are not even discussing evolution but denying abiogenesis.

Well, science finding a hard edge to the boundaries of exploration is a great gift to the creationist. There's a gap god can hide in and never have to move along. Like Learner's latest post, pretending that if science has failed, then his "idea," propsing woo as the next step after science fails makes as much sense as non-woo ideas.

 

[Learner]

Yes propositins.

Science bases propositions on a set of unambiguous units of measure based on the kilogram, second, and meter. Systems International.


Today it is evolution and still cosmology.

Evolution proposes more from the point of life ALREADY existing oddly enough. With that line of thought, rather than Creation V Evolution ... I wondering how interesting Abiogenesis V Creation would be? Both concepts are in the context of coming into existence.

Is this an example of creationists shifting goal posts (yet again) after being soundly defeated on their old stand?
The creation vs. evolution debate became a big cause for creationists with the publication of Darwin's work on evolution. Creationist's staunch stand was that species do not change over time (no evolution), that god created everything exactly as we see it today. They even defended that position in court during the Scopes trial.

Oh please ...moving goal post excuse again. Its merely something that needs updating - old redundant arguments. Yours and Ours.

After finally realizing how stupid their original stand was, they shifted their goal posts on anti-evolution to allowing for "micro-evolution" but not what they labeled "macro-evolution"... that a species can evolve (a little) but that they can not evolve into a new species because god created "kinds".

Most have given up on this ridiculous goal post position too (though certainly not all) because it is demonstrably wrong. And now the goal posts are being positioned so that they are not even discussing evolution but denying abiogenesis.

*Edit - Hope you understand the rephrase:

I need updating on "evolution"myself (a little outdated) so .. Curiously is the fossil record still problematic? Is the Cambrian explosion still an issue?



(Someone else needs to go online now g'day)

 

[skepticalbip]

Is this an example of creationists shifting goal posts (yet again) after being soundly defeated on their old stand?
The creation vs. evolution debate became a big cause for creationists with the publication of Darwin's work on evolution. Creationist's staunch stand was that species do not change over time (no evolution), that god created everything exactly as we see it today. They even defended that position in court during the Scopes trial.

Oh please ...moving goal post excuse again. Its merely something that needs updating - old redundant arguments. Yours and Ours.

Now that is an interesting (and weird) take. I thought religious folks knew "god's truth" and were arguing and defending it against the ignorant. Are you now saying that "god's truth" is flexible and subject to change?

After finally realizing how stupid their original stand was, they shifted their goal posts on anti-evolution to allowing for "micro-evolution" but not what they labeled "macro-evolution"... that a species can evolve (a little) but that they can not evolve into a new species because god created "kinds".

Most have given up on this ridiculous goal post position too (though certainly not all) because it is demonstrably wrong. And now the goal posts are being positioned so that they are not even discussing evolution but denying abiogenesis.

Indeed I need "evolution" updating myself (a little outdated) so .. Is the fossil record still probematic? Is the Cambrian explosion still an issue?

I don't know what you are trying to say here. Could you rephrase so that it makes some sense?

 

[steve_bank]

In the 90s the Catholica pope declared in the face of the evidence evolution might just be part of god's plan. I checked the major protestant sites and they were moving in the same direction.

The biblical narrative and tine lime derived from scriptura can not possibly account for the human diversity that appears from the alleged Noah breeding bottleneck.

A Chisinau response is micro-evolution. Humans always contained the seeds for variation. The time line still excludes that.

A white couple would be wondering why their kids had slanted eyes or black skin. The evolution would be observable in real time.

Creationism fails. Evolution is the best fit to all available information.

 

[atrib]

...i do NOT think the universe has always existed

Great. Looks like we agree on something at last.

So...either it came into existence spontaneously (magic) or was caused.

If caused, then caused by deliberate intent/agency OR a necessary, forced caused (which itself requires a prior explanation ---> infinite regression?)

Was it inevitable that the universe came into existence?

Ah ....so Kieth doesn't believe in the universe has always existed (Well noted Lion).

Talk about quote mining. This is what Keith actually said.

Because, Lion, i do NOT think the universe has always existed. You misunderstand me.

I do think that if the creationist is going to point to something inside the universe and say, "There! That is an example of what we can base our understanding of the beginning of the universe on," they shouldn't pick an example that's bass-ackwards to the conclusion they're trying to force.

Everything around us that we can percieve is made of eternal parts, mixein endless diversity, like using Pirates of the Caribbean Legos to build a Ghostbusters adventure in The Haunted Rum Cellar.

Pointing to reconfiguring elements and claiming 'this shows how we understand gawd started everything' just makes you look stupider than when young earthers try to explain sedimentary layers.

Amazing how his post puts the single line that Lion picked up puts everything into context, context that both Lion and you have deliberately ignored.

 

[atrib]

You and Atrib seem to be suggesting previously... "energy is synominous to paper planes and trees," regardless of when trees existed, which sounded a tad confusing (garbled logic-like) saying that the earth, planets and paper planes are the same thing as energy in the context to Steves OP below....

Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?

My point was that the physical universe ...the SOLID stuff we observe with our eyes has a beginning ...has a date or when it was formed because SCIENCE SAYS SO. Energy however WITHOUT physical form has always existed was my proposition - unless one takes to N Krauss who once said IIRC "the universe came about because of the number zero or the letter O?".

As I said previously, both of you confusingly (language) seem to make the point; responding with the notion that... "energy is synominous (exists) with paper planes and planets" which is not the same as .... paper planes and planets are synominous to energy e.g. paper planes and planets did NOT always exist!!!!

Matter is a form of energy. In the very early universe (the primordial era), there was only energy. As the universe expanded and cooled down, this energy condensed into matter (galaxies, gas clouds and star systems). And matter can be turned back into energy, by burning a piece of paper, or in stellar cores. The distinction you appear to be making is trivial. The point is that we have no evidence of matter/evidence popping into existence ex nihilo. All the matter/energy we can observe today has existed since the Big Bang.

Better to have garbled posts than garbled common-sense (I say half jestingly) .

Better to educate oneself than repeatedly embarrass oneself in public by arguing about things that one knows nothing about.