[quote]forlife wrote:
If you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, you can’t make absolutist statements like “an infinite regress is impossible”. For all you know, an infinite regress is possible, under certain conditions.[/quote]
An infinate regress is impossible, it’s circular, it necessarily begs the question.
To often regression is though of as going backwards or in reverse, and it sort of is…But what it is really is more or less removing properties or removing ‘the cover’ to get to the core. Like taking apart a watch to see what makes it tick… You can’t do it forever, you run out of parts…
These are the rules as they are right now. It not a matter that anything isn’t possible, it’s that right now, things are the way they are and right now, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility.[/quote]
He said for all you know. Unless you have definitive proof that you haven’t shared with the world? You can’t for sure know that infinite regress is impossible.
And that said, placing something outside the causal chain is a weak cop out, especially when the something you place there (God) is something you have a vested interest in “proving” real.
For all you know, the universe could be uncaused.
For all you know time is an infinite loop with no beginning or end.
[quote]Makavali wrote:<<< And that’s the issue. We don’t know. Yet.[/quote]No that’s not the issue. The issue is your framework for knowing anything at all which inescapably guarantees that you will never actually KNOW anything whatsoever if you lived to be a million, never mind the things you mentioned.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]
[Shortened for the benefit of all]
If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
Show me where I said “the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only”. You can’t, because I didn’t. What I DID say was “Your bible contains >THINGS< that are >PHYSICALLY<, historically and >LOGICALLY< impossible”. As you can see, I’ve highlighted everything in the quote that you’ve conveniently ignored in order to make me out to be some kind of irrational extremest.
[/quote]
Well that’s precisely what I mean, you say that broadly with out specifying a part. Different parts exist for different reasons. It’s kind of a dense book, you mind drilling down on a part? The purpose of one thing or another is different depending on context.
If you look at the bible as a word for word, single layer literal book, it’s not going to make sense. But it’s not that kind book. It’s muti faceted. Drill down on a part and we can discuss.
[quote]
So no, I haven’t forced you to assume anything. Nobody is twisting you’re arm, you’ve just failed to comprehend what I’m talking about (again).
If you want to go into specifics, then fine, let’s go into specifics.
Let’s start with something simple. According to the bible, is it okay to marry a non-believer?[/quote]
It tends to be frowned upon, not for the sake of the non-believer, but for the sake of the believer. In other words, it really boils down to not putting a spouse or a person over God.
Are you looking NT or OT? Is their a specific verse or passage you have in mind?[/quote]
I wasn’t specific, yes, but I also didn’t throw out the book in it’s entirety either. I’m sure parts of it are historically accurate not to mention the anthropological value of reading about interactions between people several thousands of years ago.
Two verses, actually. 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17. The former basically says it is perfectly alright because you will be sanctifying your wife and saving the otherwise “unclean” children. The later, on the other hand, says it is NOT okay because they are unclean and in fact God implies he will not save you if you marry a non-believer,
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” (2 Cor. 6:17)
[quote]forlife wrote:
If you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, you can’t make absolutist statements like “an infinite regress is impossible”. For all you know, an infinite regress is possible, under certain conditions.[/quote]
An infinate regress is impossible, it’s circular, it necessarily begs the question.
To often regression is though of as going backwards or in reverse, and it sort of is…But what it is really is more or less removing properties or removing ‘the cover’ to get to the core. Like taking apart a watch to see what makes it tick… You can’t do it forever, you run out of parts…
These are the rules as they are right now. It not a matter that anything isn’t possible, it’s that right now, things are the way they are and right now, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility.[/quote]
He said for all you know. Unless you have definitive proof that you haven’t shared with the world? You can’t for sure know that infinite regress is impossible.
And that said, placing something outside the causal chain is a weak cop out, especially when the something you place there (God) is something you have a vested interest in “proving” real.
For all you know, the universe could be uncaused.
For all you know time is an infinite loop with no beginning or end.
And that’s the issue. We don’t know. Yet.[/quote]
An infinite regress is definitionally impossible. It does not exist. You made the claim that it’s possible, so now the burden to prove the impossible is on you. If you have evidence to the contrary, I’d like to see it.
Something outside the causal chain is necessary, not a cop out…The premises of the augment necessitate that the Uncaused-cause exists. It’s the only way to solve the problem. To call it a cop out means you don’t understand the argument.
This universe if any current theories are right, is most definitely caused. Can you prove it wasn’t?
Time is a measurement of matter relative to other matter or space…All of those things are contingent. Even if you have an accordion universe scenario, you have contingencies…You have to show the creative properties of ‘nothingness’ to debunk it. This I do know…
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]
[Shortened for the benefit of all]
If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
Show me where I said “the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only”. You can’t, because I didn’t. What I DID say was “Your bible contains >THINGS< that are >PHYSICALLY<, historically and >LOGICALLY< impossible”. As you can see, I’ve highlighted everything in the quote that you’ve conveniently ignored in order to make me out to be some kind of irrational extremest.
[/quote]
Well that’s precisely what I mean, you say that broadly with out specifying a part. Different parts exist for different reasons. It’s kind of a dense book, you mind drilling down on a part? The purpose of one thing or another is different depending on context.
If you look at the bible as a word for word, single layer literal book, it’s not going to make sense. But it’s not that kind book. It’s muti faceted. Drill down on a part and we can discuss.
[quote]
So no, I haven’t forced you to assume anything. Nobody is twisting you’re arm, you’ve just failed to comprehend what I’m talking about (again).
If you want to go into specifics, then fine, let’s go into specifics.
Let’s start with something simple. According to the bible, is it okay to marry a non-believer?[/quote]
It tends to be frowned upon, not for the sake of the non-believer, but for the sake of the believer. In other words, it really boils down to not putting a spouse or a person over God.
Are you looking NT or OT? Is their a specific verse or passage you have in mind?[/quote]
I wasn’t specific, yes, but I also didn’t throw out the book in it’s entirety either. I’m sure parts of it are historically accurate not to mention the anthropological value of reading about interactions between people several thousands of years ago.
Two verses, actually. 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17. The former basically says it is perfectly alright because you will be sanctifying your wife and saving the otherwise “unclean” children. The later, on the other hand, says it is NOT okay because they are unclean and in fact God implies he will not save you if you marry a non-believer,
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” (2 Cor. 6:17)
So, is God okay with marrying infidels, or not? [/quote]
I cannot speak for God so I won’t. It’s not condemned but it’s not recommended in most Christian denominations. Honestly, I can’t see why, you’d want to any damn way. Even people of different levels of commitment to the same faith fight about it. A believer with a non-believer may do alright in the honeymoon phase, but after that it will be a nightmare, especially with kids involved.
Now the readings above one references converts, where the spouse has come to believe, and the other has not.
The other is a quote from Isaiah. The context is that in which ‘being yoked’ with a non-believer means to not “walk the same path as/with a non-believer”.
All of this makes sense to me, where are you confused?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.
On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.
And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:
The Law of Identity
The Law of the Excluded Middle
The Law of Non-contradiction
The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]
You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.
Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]
Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]
Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]
Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.
Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?
You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.
[/quote]
What are the underlying ‘assumptions’?[/quote]
Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction
They are assumptions, not irrefutable facts.
[/quote]
Laws are not assumptions, they are facts.
LAW → “(in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.”
#15.
Now what you stated is that the above ^ laws are based on assumptions, what are those assumptions?[/quote]
The assumption is that these underlying “laws” apply everywhere and under all conditions. There is good reason to believe they don’t, hence any conclusions contingent on them being true cannot be 100% proven to be true.[/quote]
Again, here is the definition of a law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.[/quote]
Which says nothing about my point that these 3 “laws” may not apply UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. Do you think Newton’s laws apply under all conditions? He may have thought so, but we’ve since learned that they don’t.
[/quote]
I never said, nor intimated ‘all conditions’. [/quote]
If you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, you can’t make absolutist statements like “an infinite regress is impossible”. For all you know, an infinite regress is possible, under certain conditions.[/quote]
An infinate regress is impossible, it’s circular, it necessarily begs the question.
To often regression is though of as going backwards or in reverse, and it sort of is…But what it is really is more or less removing properties or removing ‘the cover’ to get to the core. Like taking apart a watch to see what makes it tick… You can’t do it forever, you run out of parts…
These are the rules as they are right now. It not a matter that anything isn’t possible, it’s that right now, things are the way they are and right now, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility.[/quote]
You’ve already agreed that you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, so you can’t categorically say anything is impossible.
You can subdivide a foot into an inch into a half inch into a quarter inch, and so on for infinity. There is nothing illogical about that.
Furthermore, if there is an ultimate core to energy and matter as you claim (and we don’t know this is the case), that core may be uncaused itself.
Be careful about saying something is impossible, just because it doesn’t make sense. The laws of relativity seem impossible as well, and for many centuries scientists would have deemed them impossible until Einstein proved them wrong,
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, no idea why you thought I believe time and space only exist inside your brain. I’ve never said or implied that.
On deductive logic, I already pointed out the 3 assumptions on which it is based. You never replied, maybe you missed my
post. The correctness of deductive logic, and the confidence we can place in it, are commensurate with the correctness of its underlying assumptions.
And please don’t argue again that deductive logic has no assumptions. It does:
The Law of Identity
The Law of the Excluded Middle
The Law of Non-contradiction
The cosmological theory is a theory, not a fact.[/quote]
You have to either attack the premises as false or prove that the conclusion does not follow. Causation is a fact. Simple math bears this out. If causation does not exist, then all science fall apart as well. All you have to do is prove one tiny instance where causation does not exist and the whole argument is wrong.
You’ve been tenacious as hell, but never been able to prove any part of the argument wrong.
Logic based on assumptions is inductive not deductive logic. It indicates probability not necessity. Deductive logic deals with necessity.[/quote]
Are you claiming that deductive logic doesn’t require the 3 assumptions that I noted? How many times have you stated these assumptions as facts in your arguments supporting the cosmological theory?[/quote]
Laws are established facts, theories are based on assumptions.[/quote]
Calling it a law doesn’t mean there are no underlying assumptions.
Are you aware that philosophers debate whether the 3 underlying assumptions are in fact true, and that there is some scientific evidence supporting this?
You’re acting as if these assumptions are known facts, when they are not.
[/quote]
What are the underlying ‘assumptions’?[/quote]
Identity, Excluded Middle, Non-Contradiction
They are assumptions, not irrefutable facts.
[/quote]
Laws are not assumptions, they are facts.
LAW → “(in philosophy, science, etc.)
a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
b. a mathematical rule.”
#15.
Now what you stated is that the above ^ laws are based on assumptions, what are those assumptions?[/quote]
The assumption is that these underlying “laws” apply everywhere and under all conditions. There is good reason to believe they don’t, hence any conclusions contingent on them being true cannot be 100% proven to be true.[/quote]
Again, here is the definition of a law: a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.[/quote]
Which says nothing about my point that these 3 “laws” may not apply UNDER ALL CONDITIONS. Do you think Newton’s laws apply under all conditions? He may have thought so, but we’ve since learned that they don’t.
[/quote]
I never said, nor intimated ‘all conditions’. [/quote]
If you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, you can’t make absolutist statements like “an infinite regress is impossible”. For all you know, an infinite regress is possible, under certain conditions.[/quote]
An infinate regress is impossible, it’s circular, it necessarily begs the question.
To often regression is though of as going backwards or in reverse, and it sort of is…But what it is really is more or less removing properties or removing ‘the cover’ to get to the core. Like taking apart a watch to see what makes it tick… You can’t do it forever, you run out of parts…
These are the rules as they are right now. It not a matter that anything isn’t possible, it’s that right now, things are the way they are and right now, an infinite regress is a logical impossibility.[/quote]
You’ve already agreed that you can’t make definitive statements covering all conditions, so you can’t categorically say anything is impossible.
[/quote]
I am not making definitive statements covering all conditions. I made one covering a specific condition…
Subdivision is not a regress. The two are not the same thing, nice try though.
Prove it is even a remote possibility.
[quote]
Be careful about saying something is impossible, just because it doesn’t make sense. The laws of relativity seem impossible as well, and for many centuries scientists would have deemed them impossible until Einstein proved them wrong,[/quote]
I am careful, I don’t throw the term around lightly.
It’s called the ‘Theory of Relativity’ not the ‘Law of Relativity’…The other scientists were dealing with theories as wells. Laws are facts, theories are best estimates based on what is currently known.
I sense your trying to apply the scientific method to cosmology…It’s not a scientific argument the rules don’t apply. Rules of deduction apply, not induction.
You made a statement covering a condition that is so foreign to our current condition, it would be foolhardy to insist you know how things MUST operate under that condition.
I never said subdivision was a regress. I used it exemplify how you could infinitely remove space without ever arriving at a core component beyond which you could move no further.
I don’t have to prove the core of matter and energy (if there is one) wasn’t created. You’re the one claiming this is IMPOSSIBLE, so the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. Furthermore, the first law of thermodynamics explicitly states that matter and energy cannot be created.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You made a statement covering a condition that is so foreign to our current condition, it would be foolhardy to insist you know how things MUST operate under that condition.
[/quote]
What would that be? Now I don’t know what you are talking about.
Then why’d you bring is up?..Regress is has more to do with subtraction than division. You cannot subtract infinity.
[quote]
I don’t have to prove the core of matter and energy (if there is one) wasn’t created. You’re the one claiming this is IMPOSSIBLE, so the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. Furthermore, the first law of thermodynamics explicitly states that matter and energy cannot be created.[/quote]
Again, the ‘Law of Thermodynamics’ applies to an isolated system, not closed or open systems.
We already know that matter and energy can do nothing on their own, they are therefore contingent on other forces for their behavior and they are governed by laws. You don’t understand burden of proof. You made an unsubstantiated claim and tried to put it on me to prove it…That’s not the way it works, you said the basal material for matter and energy are uncaused, prove it. Prove it is even possible.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You made a statement covering a condition that is so foreign to our current condition, it would be foolhardy to insist you know how things MUST operate under that condition.
[/quote]
What would that be? Now I don’t know what you are talking about.
Then why’d you bring is up?..Regress is has more to do with subtraction than division. You cannot subtract infinity.
[quote]
I don’t have to prove the core of matter and energy (if there is one) wasn’t created. You’re the one claiming this is IMPOSSIBLE, so the burden of proof is on you to back up your claim. Furthermore, the first law of thermodynamics explicitly states that matter and energy cannot be created.[/quote]
Again, the ‘Law of Thermodynamics’ applies to an isolated system, not closed or open systems.
We already know that matter and energy can do nothing on their own, they are therefore contingent on other forces for their behavior and they are governed by laws. You don’t understand burden of proof. You made an unsubstantiated claim and tried to put it on me to prove it…That’s not the way it works, you said the basal material for matter and energy are uncaused, prove it. Prove it is even possible. [/quote]
I’m talking about the state of reality before the universe existed, if in fact there ever was such a state. You’re hypothesizing that there was, and you have no reason to conclude that the laws applying to the current universe, including the laws of deductive logic, MUST have held in that primordial state. Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. We simply don’t know.
The example I provided is an example of subtraction. You are removing half the space every time, yet you always have space left.
We’re not talking about whether matter and energy can do anything on their own. It’s a red herring. We’re talking about whether matter and energy MUST be created in order to exist, and we are far from being able to conclude that is true.
You’re confused about the burden of proof. I’m making no assertion that something MUST be true. I have no idea what is true and what is not. I’m only pointing out that you have to back up any absolutist claims that you make. Unless you can prove that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for matter and energy to exist without having been created, we must conclude that it’s at least possible that they do.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]
[Shortened for the benefit of all]
If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
Show me where I said “the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only”. You can’t, because I didn’t. What I DID say was “Your bible contains >THINGS< that are >PHYSICALLY<, historically and >LOGICALLY< impossible”. As you can see, I’ve highlighted everything in the quote that you’ve conveniently ignored in order to make me out to be some kind of irrational extremest.
[/quote]
Well that’s precisely what I mean, you say that broadly with out specifying a part. Different parts exist for different reasons. It’s kind of a dense book, you mind drilling down on a part? The purpose of one thing or another is different depending on context.
If you look at the bible as a word for word, single layer literal book, it’s not going to make sense. But it’s not that kind book. It’s muti faceted. Drill down on a part and we can discuss.
[quote]
So no, I haven’t forced you to assume anything. Nobody is twisting you’re arm, you’ve just failed to comprehend what I’m talking about (again).
If you want to go into specifics, then fine, let’s go into specifics.
Let’s start with something simple. According to the bible, is it okay to marry a non-believer?[/quote]
It tends to be frowned upon, not for the sake of the non-believer, but for the sake of the believer. In other words, it really boils down to not putting a spouse or a person over God.
Are you looking NT or OT? Is their a specific verse or passage you have in mind?[/quote]
I wasn’t specific, yes, but I also didn’t throw out the book in it’s entirety either. I’m sure parts of it are historically accurate not to mention the anthropological value of reading about interactions between people several thousands of years ago.
Two verses, actually. 1 Corinthians 7:12-14 and 2 Corinthians 6:14-17. The former basically says it is perfectly alright because you will be sanctifying your wife and saving the otherwise “unclean” children. The later, on the other hand, says it is NOT okay because they are unclean and in fact God implies he will not save you if you marry a non-believer,
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” (2 Cor. 6:17)
So, is God okay with marrying infidels, or not? [/quote]
I cannot speak for God so I won’t. It’s not condemned but it’s not recommended in most Christian denominations. Honestly, I can’t see why, you’d want to any damn way. Even people of different levels of commitment to the same faith fight about it. A believer with a non-believer may do alright in the honeymoon phase, but after that it will be a nightmare, especially with kids involved.
Now the readings above one references converts, where the spouse has come to believe, and the other has not.
The other is a quote from Isaiah. The context is that in which ‘being yoked’ with a non-believer means to not “walk the same path as/with a non-believer”.
All of this makes sense to me, where are you confused?[/quote]
Your first paragraph was unnecessary.
1 Corinthians 7:12-14 is not about converts. Here is the direct quote from 7:12, “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.” this is clearly (being a non-believer) in the present tense. This verse is very straight forward, it is okay to marry a non-believer because it sanctifies (not converts) the spouse and “cleans” the children.
“Yoked” literally means to be attached to, which marriage is an example of. The problem here is you have two contradictory verses. One says it is okay to marry them, the other says you should make absolutely no strong connection to them.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<<. This verse is very straight forward, it is okay to marry a non-believer because it sanctifies (not converts) the spouse and “cleans” the children.>>>[/quote]It says if you HAVE a wife, not if you marry a wife who is a non believer. If you become converted and your spouse does not. Anyone who condones the marriage of Christ with Belial has no understanding of the precious and holy covenant of marriage being the earthly representation of the matchless intimacy of the Lord with His church. Both the marriage of a man and a woman as instituted in the garden before sin AND the relationship of Adam with God have been not restored, but exalted far above the originals in Christ. That said, if a believer marries an unbeliever that marriage stands as valid before God and the believer has no right to suddenly “discover” this truth and abandon the unbelieving spouse.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You made a statement covering a condition that is so foreign to our current condition, it would be foolhardy to insist you know how things MUST operate under that condition.
[/quote]
What would that be? Now I don’t know what you are talking about.
Then why’d you bring is up?..Regress is has more to do with subtraction than division. You cannot subtract infinity.
You say ‘before’…I am not hypothesizing about laws applying to ‘this universe’, I am not hypothesizing period. They apply in all cases this universe or not. They would apply if the universe didn’t exist. I am not sure why you don’t get that. This form transcends ‘this universe’.
You’re subdividing not removing. Everybody already know subdivisions are infinite. Infinate regress is a logical fallacy. It either does not answer or it’s circular, either way it is an error, not a fact.
What is matter and energy?
[quote]
You’re confused about the burden of proof. I’m making no assertion that something MUST be true. I have no idea what is true and what is not. I’m only pointing out that you have to back up any absolutist claims that you make. Unless you can prove that it’s IMPOSSIBLE for matter and energy to exist without having been created, we must conclude that it’s at least possible that they do.[/quote]
Matter and energy may have always existed, as stated many, many, many times is irrelevant. They are consisted of contingent properties: charge, polarity, movement, frequency, etc. With out those things, there is not energy and there is no matter. Secondly, we already know that black holes can destroy matter and energy. The preservation at this point is called ‘information’ and nobody know whether that survives or not, but either case is possible. Thirdly, there is no evidence that matter or energy existed before the big bang, none, nana, zilch. Fourthly, thermodynamic laws have conditions to be met, for one the whole ‘matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed’ is in the condition of being in an isolated system. That is a very important dependency. The universe is either closed (energy can leave) or open, (energy can come and go), but it’s not isolated.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
I haven’t actually gone into any of the bibles substance with you yet so I’m not sure what these “false assumptions” you’re talking about are. To me, it seems like you’re making the false assumption that I’m making false assumptions. For the record, I’ve read the bible, but if my impression of you holds true then this fact won’t matter because you’ll just claim I haven’t read it every time I back you into a corner.[/quote]
[Shortened for the benefit of all]
If you say the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only, then I based on what you said, I have no choice but to believe that you haven’t read it, because what you accuse is not true.
Now, if you do know it and wish to discuss one part or another, I am fine if you have issue with one part or another, but to say the whole thing is bullshit is to say you don’t know what you are talking about.[/quote]
Show me where I said “the whole fucking bible is ‘false’ and that it is a history only”. You can’t, because I didn’t. What I DID say was “Your bible contains >THINGS< that are >PHYSICALLY<, historically and >LOGICALLY< impossible”. As you can see, I’ve highlighted everything in the quote that you’ve conveniently ignored in order to make me out to be some kind of irrational extremest.
[/quote]
Well that’s precisely what I mean, you say that broadly with out specifying a part. Different parts exist for different reasons. It’s kind of a dense book, you mind drilling down on a part? The purpose of one thing or another is different depending on context.
If you look at the bible as a word for word, single layer literal book, it’s not going to make sense. But it’s not that kind book. It’s muti faceted. Drill down on a part and we can discuss.
He’s talking to the Corinthians who are recent converts as he calls them ‘infants in Christ’. People who have come to believe through St. Paul and are already married.
Yoked can also mean to be bound together or take the same path.
One says don’t dump your spouse because they have not come to beleive but help them. The other, is to not put yourself in a position to let others bring you down…
Pat, now it seems you’re back to insisting that the rules we currently understand as true MUST apply under all conditions. I thought we agreed otherwise?
You claim an infinite regress is impossible because it “does not answer or is circular”. However, that isn’t the case. It does answer, you just don’t like the answer. It may seem nonintuitive that eternity could stretch in both directions, but that doesn’t prove it’s impossible. Many nonintuitive things, like relativity, have been proven possible.
Just because matter and energy have properties doesn’t mean they MUST have been created. For all you know, they were never created, and have always had these properties. According to you, possessing properties proves that something was created, and that doesn’t logically follow.
How do you know the universe MUST be isolated, and how do you know the laws of thermodynamics CANNOT apply in an unisolated system?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, now it seems you’re back to insisting that the rules we currently understand as true MUST apply under all conditions. I thought we agreed otherwise?
[/quote]
We did agree, the conditions you think should change the affect of the law(s) does not in fact do so. The laws of logic don’t require this universe to exist for them to be true. They are transcendental to this universe. Logic itself would have to be different, universe be damned.
I think relativity is very intuitive until it breaks down to 1/0, then it fails. It’s not non-intuitive, it is error. That’s different. Actually, I’d argue that a lot of errored thinking appears to be intuitive.
It depends on those properties or the ‘object’ ceases being what it is, that makes it contingent…You remove polarity, you have no energy, you remove movement, you cease having energy.
[quote]
How do you know the universe MUST be isolated, and how do you know the laws of thermodynamics CANNOT apply in an unisolated system?[/quote]
Pat, if you’re convinced that the laws of thermodynamics can be different under conditions outside the current universe, you must also admit that the laws of logic can be different.
Besides, as I’ve said several times now, the laws of logic have underlying premises, like non-contradiction, which have been challenged by philosophers and are not KNOWN as you seem to believe.
You may think it’s intuitive for time to pass differently based on the person’s perspective, or for mass to increase with speed, but you would have been considered insane to claim this in Newton’s day. And many (including me) still consider it non-intuitive, despite what we now understand about relativity.
Which is beside the point. Just because you don’t think it makes sense for eternity to stretch in both directions doesn’t prove that it’s impossible.
Again, you cannot KNOW that matter and energy are always created, including their associated properties. They, and their properties, may be uncreated.
I have looked it up, and I’m seeing a pattern here. You insist that the universe is an isolated system, and that the laws of the universe couldn’t possibly apply in a non-isolated system, but philosophers and physicists disagree with you. It’s possible, but it’s also possible that it is not the case. I don’t see anyone insisting their theory MUST be true except you and other believers. Most philosophers and physicists are honest enough to admit that they only have theories, and indeed that we know so little at the present moment, absolute certainty about anything is unavoidably elusive.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, if you’re convinced that the laws of thermodynamics can be different under conditions outside the current universe, you must also admit that the laws of logic can be different.
[/quote]
I didn’t say laws of thermodynamics can be different outside the universe, in fact they cannot be. The conditions that apply to the objects of the laws may be different, but the laws remain and I never said different.
Everything has been challenged at one point or another, in philosophy it must be proven wrong or right. Challenges are irrelevant if they do not succeed. They are on the record only if they bring up an interesting point
How many times do I have to tell you that I do not dispel this possibility, but that’s all it is, there is no evidence of it at all. I accept it and I said it does not matter and it doesn’t and it won’t next time you bring it up either.
They are contingent on other things for their existence. Further, anything ‘created’ in the absence of time can both be created and eternal at the same time. You are hopelessly locked in the idea of temporal succession and I am not advocating that.
[quote]
I have looked it up, and I’m seeing a pattern here. You insist that the universe is an isolated system, and that the laws of the universe couldn’t possibly apply in a non-isolated system, but philosophers and physicists disagree with you. It’s possible, but it’s also possible that it is not the case. I don’t see anyone insisting their theory MUST be true except you and other believers. Most philosophers and physicists are honest enough to admit that they only have theories, and indeed that we know so little at the present moment, absolute certainty about anything is unavoidably elusive.[/quote]
You didn’t look it up very deeply, it’s a lofty topic but nonetheless, I never said the universe is an isolated system. I said that the universe is thought to be either an open or closed system, not isolated. I specifically said it is thought not to be isolated. I didn’t say the laws of the universe don’t apply I said that in a closed or open system energy isn’t necessarily conserved, that’s it.
You are trying to claim that I am claiming to have all the answers and I know the deepest secrets of how the universe began, which is not what I am doing.
I am merely advocating that causes necessitate their effects, either by succession and/ or contingency/ dependency and that this causal chain began or resulted from that which is not caused but must be able to cause. That’s it…
I don’t know if we live in a universe, multiverse, multispacial dimensions, or if it’s all a figment of the imagination or if it’s all a big joke, causation and cosmology can withstand all those scenarios.
In that case, the conditions under which the laws of logic apply could also be different outside the universe. For example, we don’t know that non-contradiction holds outside the universe, and indeed there is some argument that it doesn’t always hold, even in our universe.
When I say that the premises of logic are challenged, I’m referring to the current state. Did you not see the examples of standing in the doorway, and the Liar’s Paradox, that I provided earlier? There are current arguments against deductive logic being true, even in our current universe.
If you accept the possibility of an eternal chain of causes and effects extending in both directions, you can’t categorically claim that an infinite regress MUST be false. Even if all things have a cause (and we don’t know even this), an infinite regress ceases to be a problem if it’s possible that the causal chain extends infinitely in both directions.
Prove that matter and energy, with their associated properties, MUST be created. You haven’t done this yet, because you can’t. You can argue all you want about things being contingent on their properties, but you’re missing the point. It’s possible that the things, and the properties themselves, are not created. I’m not saying anything about temporality. I’m talking about whether something is CREATED or not.
No, you said earlier that the universe is an isolated system and that the laws of thermodynamics only apply in an isolated system. Are you changing that now?
I know what you’re advocating, and I’m pointing out that it is only a THEORY, one among MANY, and not an indisputable fact. You don’t KNOW that all things, except one thing, have a cause. You don’t KNOW that matter/energy has ever even once been created. You don’t KNOW that deductive logic always leads to valid and sound conclusions. ALL of these assertions you make have been challenged, and continue to be challenged, by philosophers and physicists.
I respect theorizing as much as anyone, but it annoys me when people present their pet theory as absolute fact, and refuse to consider that they might be wrong.