i would say that both are equally illogical.
we are playing a “my aporetic affirmation is better than yours !” kind of game here.
which is kinda pointless.
if logic was the only criterium, the agnostic position (“i don’t know”) would be the best.
but logic is NOT the only criterium.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Well it’s his fault for not being specific. Yes, the accordion universe is plausible and even logically possible, but is it probable? Even if it is an accordion universe, his singularity theory requires random causation and that is as far fetched as it gets. Especially when their is no evidence. If the universe was random then there should be randomness all over it, instead causation is rampant.
Further, you cannot regress infinitely and arrive at a eternal universe at least contingently speaking. Eventually you run out of properties and starting over is where the argument becomes circular.
And how dare you understand ephrem![/quote]
Ouroboros; the snake that eats it’s own tail.
The universe collapses in to a singularity. This singularity expands to form a new universe; ad infinitum.
This always was and always will be. Just as logical as your god.[/quote]
So you admit god is just as logical as an “it always existed” universe?[/quote]
Using pat’s logic it is. The only downside to the god-scenario is that he’s nowhere to be found. The universe on the other hand… well, we’re made of stardust after all.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?
[/quote]
Why does it have to be made of something? There is a medium matter can travel through. It can be measured and manipulated. It isn’t nothing.
What is the medium made of, if not matter, antimatter, or energy?
How do we know there is an exclusive cause effect relationship, and that randomness isn’t playing a role? Can we definitively rule randomness out, and if so why?
Sorry for all the questions…just curious in case there’s something I’m missing.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It always existed.
Where did god come from, nothing?
[/quote]
The concept of god is itself an entity outside of the universe. Asking for an explanation on the origin of god as bound by the rules of the universe in nonsensical.[/quote]
Believing in something outside of the causal chain and claiming that it caused that chain, that’s nonsensical.
[/quote]
No it’s a paradox either way. Scientifically there has to be a cause, but a cause violates science. Observation and science tell us everything has a cause, but they also tell up the universe cannot have been created.
Most people accept that there must be a cause and in doing so believe that there is something external to the universe. There is nothing nonsensical about it.
You are the one essentially asking me to describe completely the game of baseball using only football terminology. “Where did god come from?” is nonsensical. Where and from are concepts dealing with our perception of the physical universe. God by definition isn’t part of the physical universe. To ask a question about god requires the premise that he isn’t bound to physical laws.[/quote]
You’re making the assertion that god created the universe by saying, “well, the universe exists, so god must exist too”. That is nonsensical.
Even with our limited understanding of the universe, you can apply your eternal noncaused-god argument to the universe as it is.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It always existed.
Where did god come from, nothing?
[/quote]
The concept of god is itself an entity outside of the universe. Asking for an explanation on the origin of god as bound by the rules of the universe in nonsensical.[/quote]
Believing in something outside of the causal chain and claiming that it caused that chain, that’s nonsensical.
[/quote]
No it’s a paradox either way. Scientifically there has to be a cause, but a cause violates science. Observation and science tell us everything has a cause, but they also tell up the universe cannot have been created.
Most people accept that there must be a cause and in doing so believe that there is something external to the universe. There is nothing nonsensical about it.
You are the one essentially asking me to describe completely the game of baseball using only football terminology. “Where did god come from?” is nonsensical. Where and from are concepts dealing with our perception of the physical universe. God by definition isn’t part of the physical universe. To ask a question about god requires the premise that he isn’t bound to physical laws.[/quote]
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”
Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]
All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.
Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]
ummm… I’m afraid you are confusing determined and/or widely accepted laws of physics with science.
Hawkings, who has already been mentioned once or twice in this thread, has done a respectable job of turning around the causality paradigm.
Also, the law of conservation of mass and energy is in relation to a closed system. Matter and anti-matter annihilate when they come into contact… so, at some level, matter can be destroyed. Secondly, the universe doesn’t require being created.
We’re coming back to the original point of the thread which was the difficulty of understanding infinity.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?
[/quote]
Why does it have to be made of something? There is a medium matter can travel through. It can be measured and manipulated. It isn’t nothing.
What is the medium made of, if not matter, antimatter, or energy?
[/quote]
Once again, why does it have to be made of something?
[quote]
How do we know there is an exclusive cause effect relationship, and that randomness isn’t playing a role? Can we definitively rule randomness out, and if so why?
Sorry for all the questions…just curious in case there’s something I’m missing.[/quote]
Because there is defined cause and effect. The particle goes through both slits and interferes with itself. It is an answer that contradicts the traditional view of matter, but it is still an answer.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.
Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]
A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.
Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.
How could there be more evidence to support an infinite universe? In order to throw out God you must throw out all history and all DNA evidence most logic. But 100 people have looked at the universe with some authority to talk about it and there is more evidence to support infinite? Look here is logic! Once there was nothing it is that simple, and something out side of what we know to be of are universe or reality, made the 1st something in are universe and that is God or the crater as many would say and if it was not for that there would still be nothing in are universe. Any questions?!
[quote]kamui wrote:
i would say that both are equally illogical.
we are playing a “my aporetic affirmation is better than yours !” kind of game here.
which is kinda pointless.
if logic was the only criterium, the agnostic position (“i don’t know”) would be the best.
but logic is NOT the only criterium. [/quote]
if they are both equally illogical, then they are both equally logical 
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?
Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]
What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]
The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.
[quote]K2inmt wrote:
How could there be more evidence to support an infinite universe? In order to throw out God you must throw out all history and all DNA evidence most logic. But 100 people have looked at the universe with some authority to talk about it and there is more evidence to support infinite? Look here is logic! Once there was nothing it is that simple, and something out side of what we know to be peace of are universe of reality, made the 1st something in are universe and that is God or the crater as many would say and if it was not for that there would still be nothing in are universe. Any questions?! [/quote]
Yes. I have a few questions.
Why must I throw out all history, DNA evidence and most logic… if i don’t believe in god? And what history, DNA evidence and logic are you talking about here?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?
Isn’t it possible the unpredictability of the double slit experiment is caused by randomness rather than ignorance?[/quote]
What’s unpredictable about the double slit experiment? If you shoot enough electrons at it the slits you will get a interference pattern every time with out fail…That’s pretty damn predictable.[/quote]
The pattern is predictable, but the fate of each individual electron is completely unpredictable.[/quote]
Sure… but, the predictability of the pattern implies a statistical predictability of the fate of each individual electron. Just because we have not determined how to measure or define this predictability, does not mean it does not exist.
[quote]K2inmt wrote:
How could there be more evidence to support an infinite universe? In order to throw out God you must throw out all history and all DNA evidence most logic. But 100 people have looked at the universe with some authority to talk about it and there is more evidence to support infinite? Look here is logic! Once there was nothing it is that simple, and something out side of what we know to be of are universe or reality, made the 1st something in are universe and that is God or the crater as many would say and if it was not for that there would still be nothing in are universe. Any questions?! [/quote]
wut, lol
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It always existed.
Where did god come from, nothing?
[/quote]
The concept of god is itself an entity outside of the universe. Asking for an explanation on the origin of god as bound by the rules of the universe in nonsensical.[/quote]
Believing in something outside of the causal chain and claiming that it caused that chain, that’s nonsensical.
[/quote]
No it’s a paradox either way. Scientifically there has to be a cause, but a cause violates science. Observation and science tell us everything has a cause, but they also tell up the universe cannot have been created.
Most people accept that there must be a cause and in doing so believe that there is something external to the universe. There is nothing nonsensical about it.
You are the one essentially asking me to describe completely the game of baseball using only football terminology. “Where did god come from?” is nonsensical. Where and from are concepts dealing with our perception of the physical universe. God by definition isn’t part of the physical universe. To ask a question about god requires the premise that he isn’t bound to physical laws.[/quote]
A lack of causality does not “violate science.”
Nor has science told us that the “universe cannot have been created.”
[/quote]
All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.
Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]
ummm… I’m afraid you are confusing determined and/or widely accepted laws of physics with science.
Hawkings, who has already been mentioned once or twice in this thread, has done a respectable job of turning around the causality paradigm.
[/quote]
got a link or something?
What you are talking about is conversion, not creation. Matter and energy are really the same thing, you can convert one to the other. You cannot create and destroy it though.
Black holes convert matter to energy via hawking radiation too, which is pretty neat.
And isn’t the universe itself a closed (more truly and isolated) system?
Yes. I have a few questions.
Why must I throw out all history, DNA evidence and most logic… if i don’t believe in god? And what history, DNA evidence and logic are you talking about here?[/quote]
1 there is more historical evidence of God and then anything else!
2 DNA has proved we are not old enuf to have evolved.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
All of science is based on the assumption of causality. If the universe has no cause, pretty much all of science is technically built on a invalid premise.
Science states that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. So yeah the creation of the universe would also violate science.[/quote]
A universe collapsing into a singularity does not violate science. No information is lost during the collaps, it is simply re-ordered.
Upon expansion the energy cools and orders itself once more.[/quote]
Yes, singularities do in fact destroy information.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]K2inmt wrote:
How could there be more evidence to support an infinite universe? In order to throw out God you must throw out all history and all DNA evidence most logic. But 100 people have looked at the universe with some authority to talk about it and there is more evidence to support infinite? Look here is logic! Once there was nothing it is that simple, and something out side of what we know to be of are universe or reality, made the 1st something in are universe and that is God or the crater as many would say and if it was not for that there would still be nothing in are universe. Any questions?! [/quote]
wut, lol
[/quote]
We may have a contender here.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]K2inmt wrote:
How could there be more evidence to support an infinite universe? In order to throw out God you must throw out all history and all DNA evidence most logic. But 100 people have looked at the universe with some authority to talk about it and there is more evidence to support infinite? Look here is logic! Once there was nothing it is that simple, and something out side of what we know to be peace of are universe of reality, made the 1st something in are universe and that is God or the crater as many would say and if it was not for that there would still be nothing in are universe. Any questions?! [/quote]
Yes. I have a few questions.
Why must I throw out all history, DNA evidence and most logic… if i don’t believe in god? And what history, DNA evidence and logic are you talking about here?[/quote]
1 There is more historic evidence on God then any other subject !
2 DNA has shown that we are not as old as other animals that have evolved. We are just not that old.
it’s basically a drunk and/or asyntaxic version of the cosmological argument
nothing new here.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
What comprises space if there is no matter, antimatter, or energy present?
[/quote]
Why does it have to be made of something? There is a medium matter can travel through. It can be measured and manipulated. It isn’t nothing.
What is the medium made of, if not matter, antimatter, or energy?
[/quote]
Once again, why does it have to be made of something?
[quote]
How do we know there is an exclusive cause effect relationship, and that randomness isn’t playing a role? Can we definitively rule randomness out, and if so why?
Sorry for all the questions…just curious in case there’s something I’m missing.[/quote]
Because there is defined cause and effect. The particle goes through both slits and interferes with itself. It is an answer that contradicts the traditional view of matter, but it is still an answer.[/quote]
Because if it isn’t made of something, it is definitionally nothing, which was my point.
I thought the particle only goes through one slit but that slit it goes through can’t be predicted? Guess I’m forgetting what they actually found if what you’re saying is true.
On randomness, do you believe in free will, and if so do you consider the creation of free will to be an example of randomness?