Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 95

Thread: Mind Trap #1

  1. #1
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Mind Trap #1

    Mind Trap #1
    (In The beginning.)
    By: The Mind Trap

    It has, up to this point, been a common theme among atheists to say that there is a lack of evidence for an intelligent source for creation. In this argument, for which I take full blame, I will show the logical proof for the inevitable conclusion that an intelligent source is required, or that our atheists friends must disavow science.



    Assumptions on the beginning
    • A1) It is finite, in that it occurred in a moment, namely the first moment.
      B1) It is evolutionary in that it started from nothing and worked it's way up to the point where we are now


    ----- The argument ----
    *=assumption
    • 1) All things are made of smaller more elemental things.
      Changed from "All things can be divided into parts". GP

    • 2) Because of #1, a bottom up evolutionary beginning is impossible. (Because there is no bottom)

    • 3) Because of #2 whatever started our universe must be capable of illogical actions.

    • 4) If our universe has it's start in a naturalistic illogical process (IE not bound by cause and effect) Then the first assumptions of science is false. (That being that the universe operates according to laws)

    • * 5) Despite #4 Our universe appears to operate by laws.

    • 6) Because #5 does not rectify the inherent impossibility shown in #2, our origin is the product of both logical, and illogical actions.

    • *7) Only a thinking source can produce both logical and illogical actions.


    Conclusion
    Therefore, an evolutionary beginning is impossible, and our universe requires a thinking origin (God).



    --- foot notes ---
    (For clarification)
    • 1) "All things" for the purpose of this argument is specifically "all that is contained in our universe". As far as I can tell this has never been formally addressed by any great philosopher specifically. While several come close, they usually involve lines and points. (Iíd appreciate any direction to those that have).

      2) A reality built upon a foundation of infinite regression of blocks is unable to be started by laying a first block. (It is illogical)

      3) I say illogical action, not because the action its self is illogical. (IE it is not illogical for a creator to create). While 1+1=2 is logical, it takes the ability to do the illogical to writing 1+1=3.

      4) If origin of the universe is illogical, and naturalistic. Then there is no reason for all that the universe contains to be logical.

      5) strait assumption

      6) Illogical in itís beginning, but logical in itís continuance.

      7) We have two choices .
      • a) We can abandon science as a legitimate means to discovering truth, because we recognize that the very first assumptions of science are incorrect.
      • b) We can accept that a thinking source created the universe and that the laws within it make sense because of him.




    *I welcome all correction or clarification to this argument, and I will update it with any relevant links one may prove worthy.*
    Last edited by MindTrap028; May 4th, 2009 at 04:36 PM.
    To serve man.

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    B1) It is evolutionary in that it started from nothing and worked it's way up to the point where we are now
    Are we talking about our universe only? I don't think the universe itself is an evolutionary process. While life on planets evolve to survive, the universe is slowly dying out through entropy.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    3) Because of #2 whatever started our universe must be capable of illogical actions.
    You lost me here. It's entirely possible our universe was spawned from another universe in a natural cause-effect situation.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by WOLF
    Are we talking about our universe only? I don't think the universe itself is an evolutionary process. While life on planets evolve to survive, the universe is slowly dying out through entropy.
    Evolution in this sense is the idea of simple --> complex. Stars burn hydrogen, and eventually create Iron (it's more complicated than that, but you get the idea).

    Quote Originally Posted by WOLF
    You lost me here. It's entirely possible our universe was spawned from another universe in a natural cause-effect situation
    Your saying it's possible for a natural event to create something built on an infinite regression?

    In order for you to hold such a position you must now disavow science.
    To serve man.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Mind Trap #1
    (In The beginning.)
    By: The Mind Trap

    It has, up to this point, been a common theme among atheists to say that there is a lack of evidence for an intelligent source for creation. In this argument, for which I take full blame, I will show the logical proof for the inevitable conclusion that an intelligent source is required, or that our atheists friends must disavow science.
    Oh, this is amusing coming from a creationist.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Assumptions on the beginning
    • A1) It is finite, in that it occurred in a moment, namely the first moment.
      B1) It is evolutionary in that it started from nothing and worked it's way up to the point where we are now
    1. The big bang theory does not state that the universe "began" 14.3 billion years ago (and most certainly not 6,000 or 12,000), it states that our universes current must have come about 14.3 billion years ago, not necessarily the whole of energy and space-time.

    2. Evolutionary, is a colloquial sense, sure. Not in a scientific sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    ----- The argument ----
    *=assumption
    • 1) All things can be divided into parts.

    • 2) Because of #1, a bottom up evolutionary beginning is impossible. (Because there is no bottom)

    • 3) Because of #2 whatever started our universe must be capable of illogical actions.

    • 4) If our universe has it's start in a naturalistic illogical process (IE not bound by cause and effect) Then the first assumptions of science is false. (That being that the universe operates according to laws)

    • * 5) Despite #4 Our universe appears to operate by laws.

    • 6) Because #5 does not rectify the inherent impossibility shown in #2, our origin is the product of both logical, and illogical actions.

    • *7) Only a thinking source can produce both logical and illogical actions.
    1. Space-time can't, as we understand it, be split up past a plank length. More specifically, a charge cannot be split up into smaller parts past the charge of a (up?) quark, which is 1/3 the charge of an electron. Just a counter-example to demonstrate that you aren't being pedantic about this. What specifically can be divided? Certainly not all things.

    2. What?

    3. Why?

    4. Or merely different laws.

    5. True.

    6. No, it does not. You're mistaking logic for causality.

    7. Complete logical leap. Nothing about logical and illogical actions by any means implicates a mind. In fact, minds implicate a form of logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Conclusion
    Therefore, an evolutionary beginning is impossible, and our universe requires a thinking origin (God).

    I think that it is fascinating that you choose the word "evolutionary."

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Oh, this is amusing coming from a creationist.
    I'm in the mood for a laugh.. please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    I think that it is fascinating that you choose the word "evolutionary."
    I don't see why?

    Quote Originally Posted by define evolution
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&c...ition&ct=title
    development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of ...
    Quote Originally Posted by DEFINE EVOLUTIONARY
    of or relating to or produced by evolution

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    2. Evolutionary, is a colloquial sense, sure. Not in a scientific sense.
    Are you saying that science doesn't think the universe evolved?

    Quote Originally Posted by WIKI
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_scale
    The Planck length is related to Planck energy by the uncertainty principle. At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute. Because the Compton wavelength is roughly equal to the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole at the Planck scale, a photon with sufficient energy to probe this realm would yield no information whatsoever. Any photon energetic enough to precisely measure a Planck-sized object could actually create a particle of that dimension, but it would be massive enough to immediately become a black hole (a.k.a Planck particle), thus completely distorting that region of space, and swallowing the photon. This is the most extreme example possible of the uncertainty principle, and explains why only a quantum gravity theory reconciling general relativity with quantum mechanics will allow us to understand the dynamics of space-time at this scale. Planck scale dynamics is important for cosmology because if we trace the evolution of the cosmos back to the very beginning, at some very early stage the universe should have been so hot that processes involving energies as high as the Planck energy (corresponding to distances as short as the Planck length) may have occurred. This period is therefore called the Planck era or Planck epoch.
    Emphasis mine to dispel the idea that "evolution" is the wrong word for what I am talking about.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    1. Space-time can't, as we understand it, be split up past a plank length.
    Space-time is a dimension I don't think it is a "thing".


    - Planck Length
    I'm specifically looking at this portion
    At this scale, the concepts of size and distance break down, as quantum indeterminacy becomes virtually absolute
    So now I learned a new word. "quantum indeterminacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy.

    Which as best as I can gather is just a way of saying "We can't measure it".
    This does not mean that it doesn't have a measure, Or that it doesn't have parts.

    (I'm not so sure about this concept yet, so I'm looking forward to your response/explanation. )

    Also if what you say is true, then I don't understand this thought experiment at all.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
    If the photons are sufficiently energetic to make possible a measurement whose precision is less than 1 Planck length, their collision with the object under study would, in theory, create a minuscule black hole.
    If there is no such thing as "less than a Planck length" Then what exactly can be gathered from such a thought experiment. You may as well substitute FSM for "Less than a Planck length".

    I am thus lead to believe that one of you are wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    More specifically, a charge cannot be split up into smaller parts past the charge of a (up?) quark, which is 1/3 the charge of an electron. Just a counter-example to demonstrate that you aren't being pedantic about this. What specifically can be divided? Certainly not all things
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_quark
    So the question of "What is an Up quark Made of" doesn't make sense?

    I think you are mistaking what humans can do, and what is theoretically possible. I know humans will be limited in both our ability to measure and to break apart. But all the examples above are human limitations. Much like event horizons may limit us from seeing past a point, doesn't mean there is nothing there to be seen.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    2. What?
    Answer

    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    2) A reality built upon a foundation of infinite regression of blocks is unable to be started by laying a first block. (It is illogical)

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    What specifically can be divided? Certainly not all things.
    Can you give an example of a "Thing" that can not be divided into parts?

    More specifically, a "Thing" for which the question "What is it made of" is made nonsensical. Because until that question doesn't make sense my point (#1) stands.


    So it goes like this.
    What is an Up Quark made of?

    Your Answer. Nothing

    Does it really make sense that an Up Quark is made of nothing?

    GP, I have limited my response to #1 and #2. Because there is no point moving on, until we finish with those.. Yes?
    To serve man.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I'm in the mood for a laugh.. please explain.
    Well, a creationist telling evolutionists that they're not being consistent with science is rather like a prostitute telling a preacher that he's committed sins.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I don't see why?
    Strange diction.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Are you saying that science doesn't think the universe evolved?


    Emphasis mine to dispel the idea that "evolution" is the wrong word for what I am talking about.
    Because it is far too often that creationists or theists misuse, misunderstand, or contort the scientific definition of evolution. (Which is biological evolution by means of natural selection)


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Space-time is a dimension I don't think it is a "thing".
    Actually, technically speaking, space-time is a manifold, and only a property of it is that it is (currently believed to be) four-dimensional.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    - Planck Length
    I'm specifically looking at this portion


    So now I learned a new word. "quantum indeterminacy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy.

    Which as best as I can gather is just a way of saying "We can't measure it".
    This does not mean that it doesn't have a measure, Or that it doesn't have parts.

    (I'm not so sure about this concept yet, so I'm looking forward to your response/explanation. )
    This is both true and false, and highly depending on how you define/understand things. While things might theoretically exist, it is difficult to say that they exist in any sense of word as we know it:

    "Current theory suggests that 1 Planck length is the smallest distance or size about which anything can be known." --Wiki

    It gets to the problem that at that level, it really doesn't affect/interact/is strange compared to our universe, in which the concept of dividing it makes little physical sense. Never the less, division was the wrong word here, I think/I didn't get what you were trying to say. You meant coming from smaller, more elementary things.




    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Also if what you say is true, then I don't understand this thought experiment at all.


    If there is no such thing as "less than a Planck length" Then what exactly can be gathered from such a thought experiment. You may as well substitute FSM for "Less than a Planck length".

    I am thus lead to believe that one of you are wrong.
    Yes and no. But before we get lost into a long discussion into quantum mechanics which would more or less detract from the topic, I clarified above that I didn't quite get your meaning, but now I do, so we can carry on.





    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Can you give an example of a "Thing" that can not be divided into parts?
    Physically, the example of a quark charge is probably the best example.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    GP, I have limited my response to #1 and #2. Because there is no point moving on, until we finish with those.. Yes?
    Indeed, so let's get to the main point.


    Your argument is essentially nothing more than a rephrasing of the kalam argument with different wording and in a modified form.


    The main crux of your argument hinges on one point:


    "# 2) Because of #1, a bottom up evolutionary beginning is impossible. (Because there is no bottom)"


    Which presupposes several different things. The most important thing being that there needs to be an uncaused cause. Which is to say "The universe comes from little events, these events are linked together and come from one another (causality), and at some point, something must have caused them and given a finite amount of time, a tremendous (but finite) amount of things have happened."


    To which I'm always left asking the question: "Let's assume for a moment that everything you say is true. How does this imply the further properties you're suggesting? (e.g. how do you get from "ultimate cause" to "thinking origin" to "god" to "omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent god" to "God who wrote the Bible". Giant logical leaps are taken here. Even from "ultimate cause" to "god")

  7. #7
    Registered User

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    1,593
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Your saying it's possible for a natural event to create something built on an infinite regression?

    In order for you to hold such a position you must now disavow science.
    You mean that matter can not be created or destroyed? Remember I said "spawned" not created. In other words, our universe is a byproduct of a natural reaction from some other universe.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Well, a creationist telling evolutionists that they're not being consistent with science is rather like a prostitute telling a preacher that he's committed sins.
    *L* ... I get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Because it is far too often that creationists or theists misuse, misunderstand, or contort the scientific definition of evolution. (Which is biological evolution by means of natural selection)
    I see your point. Hopefully we can avoid any such misunderstanding.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Never the less, division was the wrong word here, I think/I didn't get what you were trying to say. You meant coming from smaller, more elementary things
    Yes.. Do you think I should reword the OP for better understanding?

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Physically, the example of a quark charge is probably the best example
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

    I didn't read anything that would imply that a quark must be made of nothing.


    -From the idea of Elementary particle-

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_particles

    Historically, the hadrons (mesons and baryons such as the proton and neutron) and even whole atoms were once regarded as elementary particles
    My point is, basically this is only science saying "This is as far as we have gotten". Without a reason to believe that there even is a such thing as an "Elementary particle", the evidence doesn't support the idea.

    Also as the link points out, the idea that there are theories which posit physical dimensions for these " Elementary particles, doesn't help.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Your argument is essentially nothing more than a rephrasing of the kalam argument with different wording and in a modified form.
    I think my argument is just about the opposit, while it does contain within it the implications of the Kalam Argument

    His is about finite beginnings, mine is about infinite in structure.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    The most important thing being that there needs to be an uncaused cause.
    My argument is not so much concerned with the uncaused nature of whatever caused our universe. Instead I am looking at how the universe is structured. The very building blocks that make up everything appear to
    be infinite in it's regression. In order for existence to be, a force had to do something that is illogical, namely start something that has no beginning. Now I don't mean beginning in the sense of time, but rather in the sense of foundation.

    The idea of an "Evolutionary universe" is the idea of building from a foundation, but when we consider it, all we can reasonably see is an infinite regression.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    To which I'm always left asking the question: "Let's assume for a moment that everything you say is true. How does this imply the further properties you're suggesting? (e.g. how do you get from "ultimate cause" to "thinking origin" to "god" to "omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent god" to "God who wrote the Bible". Giant logical leaps are taken here. Even from "ultimate cause" to "god")
    My argument is only concerned with "Thinking cause".

    This argument should be seen IMO, as the step between "Ultimate cause" and "God".

    1) Ultimate cause
    2) Thinking Cause
    3) God (Because God is basically the ultimate thinking cause)... What else would we assume if 1 and 2 were given?

    Could an Atheist after accepting 1 & 2, still deny God? (Reasonably)

    Atheists (On ODN) have been harping on the fact that a First cause does not necessitate God. A thinking Cause does however precludes a "Natural" cause.
    Enter my argument to prove that point. *Fingers crossed*


    While a different form of this argument may be used to show a "First cause".
    My argument is actually saying that a "First Cause" must be capable of an illogical action. As "cause and effect" are what binds natural process and is inherently logical. Anything less, and we must abandon science as it's first premise would be shown false. (Which is included in my argument)
    Last edited by MindTrap028; May 13th, 2009 at 03:08 PM.
    To serve man.

  9. #9
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    *L* ... I get it.
    You'll see later on, but I do find it ironic that you reject evolution (which has far better evidence than your current theory) and support the OP's inductive hypothesis as being completely logically valid.

    There's a large disconnect here, but this isn't germane, so we'll move on.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I see your point. Hopefully we can avoid any such misunderstanding.


    Yes.. Do you think I should reword the OP for better understanding?
    Being more clear never is a bad thing, but the choice edit your OP is all yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

    I didn't read anything that would imply that a quark must be made of nothing.
    Well, that's good, because I never said a quark is made from nothing. There's two points here:

    1. I said the quark's charge was indivisible.

    2. Indivisibility does not mean that it is "made from nothing." That is a logical leap, and in fact a wrong statement in general. 1 is not properly divisible in the set of integers mod 2. This is a complicated mathematical concept, but there are objects which are not properly divisible in any sense.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    My point is, basically this is only science saying "This is as far as we have gotten". Without a reason to believe that there even is a such thing as an "Elementary particle", the evidence doesn't support the idea.

    Also as the link points out, the idea that there are theories which posit physical dimensions for these " Elementary particles, doesn't help.
    Well, not to be crass, but since this isn't what my statement was, we'll move on, but I would like state that your argument does not make an elementary particle impossible (in fact, you would more or less define the elementary particle as "god")



    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I think my argument is just about the opposit, while it does contain within it the implications of the Kalam Argument

    His is about finite beginnings, mine is about infinite in structure.
    What does "infinite in structure" mean?


    (by-the-by, Kalam is a school of thought, not a man)

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    My argument is not so much concerned with the uncaused nature of whatever caused our universe. Instead I am looking at how the universe is structured. The very building blocks that make up everything appear to
    be infinite in it's regression. In order for existence to be, a force had to do something that is illogical, namely start something that has no beginning. Now I don't mean beginning in the sense of time, but rather in the sense of foundation.
    The main problem here is quite simple. You're using inductive reasoning, and arguing the following:

    1. Look, there was a basic particle (molecules).
    2. Look, then later there were more basic particles (atoms).
    3. Then, there were even more basic particles (quarks, etc).

    C. Therefore we should be able to go back infinitely.


    This is not a valid argument, because though science uses a lot of inductive reasoning, it uses it very carefully. And you have to use inductive reasoning very carefully. Inductive reasoning, without further evidence to support it, should never be used like deductive reasoning (where arguing out ad infinitum is a valid way of arguing). You cannot, as a general rule, make a claim that: "It happened once, it happened twice, it happened 1,000 times, therefore it will happen again."

    You can make a claim of probability, but not necessity. Further more, in science, we are careful that we can always test our inductive reasoning multiple times, to see if it is invalid. There is absolutely no way to test the theory you are trying to argue for.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    My argument is only concerned with "Thinking cause".

    This argument should be seen IMO, as the step between "Ultimate cause" and "God".

    1) Ultimate cause
    2) Thinking Cause
    3) God (Because God is basically the ultimate thinking cause)... What else would we assume if 1 and 2 were given?

    Could an Atheist after accepting 1 & 2, still deny God? (Reasonably)
    A. I don't see you proving a "thinking" cause. Only a point whereby you argue the universe should break down.

    B. And in order prove a thinking entity, you have to define what "thinking" is. Then you have to prove that it is necessarily true that your entity thinks.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Atheists (On ODN) have been harping on the fact that a First cause does not necessitate God. A thinking Cause does however precludes a "Natural" cause.
    Enter my argument to prove that point. *Fingers crossed*
    There are other possibilities, but I'll wait until we clear up the bit above.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    While a different form of this argument may be used to show a "First cause".
    My argument is actually saying that a "First Cause" must be capable of an illogical action. As "cause and effect" are what binds natural process and is inherently logical. Anything less, and we must abandon science as it's first premise would be shown false. (Which is included in my argument)
    If you can jump over this hurtle, I'll provide another one for this particular argument.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Well, that's good, because I never said a quark is made from nothing
    There must still be some misunderstanding of my point.
    My argument is built on the fact that stuff is made of stuff.

    So unless you are willing at some point to say "X is made of nothing", then my point #1 stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    1. I said the quark's charge was indivisible.

    2. Indivisibility does not mean that it is "made from nothing
    If it's made of something, then it has parts. I'm not sure how you are attacking my point #1. The actual "Dividing" is not necessary for my #1 to be true.


    If A is made of B, and B is made of C. Then in the beginning they had to be put together. C.. B.. A.

    That is what is meant by evolutionary in origin.

    Even if it were true that once C was combined it could never ever be split apart. It is still necessary for C's to come together to make B's.


    Also, I'm not sure how well "properly divisible" applies to the concepts at hand. It is complex, but a link to an explanation would be appreciated.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    This is a complicated mathematical concept, but there are objects which are not properly divisible in any sense.
    Please support / explain this more.
    Unless it is that these objects are NOT made of other "stuff" then it won't defeat #1. (I've made the mistake of thinking that was your position once)

    I think you are getting away from what you said earlier
    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Never the less, division was the wrong word here, I think/I didn't get what you were trying to say. You meant coming from smaller, more elementary things.
    As long as it is made of smaller more elementary things, then dividing is not necessary. I'll go back and edit the OP to reflect this change.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    but I would like state that your argument does not make an elementary particle impossible (in fact, you would more or less define the elementary particle as "god")
    I'm pointing out that the very idea of a elementary particle is contrary to logic. Such a "particle" would be super natural in nature. The equivalent of "Will".

    Unless you are saying that the question of "What is it made of" becomes irrelevant, then you really aren't defeating my #1.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    What does "infinite in structure" mean?
    Like my A, B, C, example ad infinity.

    It's about foundational parts for other parts.
    It is the question of "What is X made of".

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    The main problem here is quite simple. You're using inductive reasoning, and arguing the following:

    1. Look, there was a basic particle (molecules).
    2. Look, then later there were more basic particles (atoms).
    3. Then, there were even more basic particles (quarks, etc).

    C. Therefore we should be able to go back infinitely.
    Those are the proofs that the question "What is this made of" is a valid question until proven to be invalid. There is no reason to believe that at some point, stuff is not made of stuff. Which must be your position in order to deny #1 as a valid assumption.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    This is not a valid argument, because though science uses a lot of inductive reasoning, it uses it very carefully.
    I don't think I'm being reckless with inductive reasoning.
    The question (What is this) is valid with no reasonable limitation in sight. I'm simply applying the implications of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    You cannot, as a general rule, make a claim that: "It happened once, it happened twice, it happened 1,000 times, therefore it will happen again."
    This reminds me of Gravity. In fact, I'm not saying that "It will happen again".. I'm saying it's unreasonable to conclude that it won't happen again.
    And until some test fails in a way that is not due to the limitations of the test itself. It seems to make the most sense that the question of "What is this made of" will always remain valid.


    The position opposite of "Stuff is made of Stuff" (a rewording of #1), is that Some stuff is not made of stuff.

    I'm not sure you realize that you are taking the latter position.
    Which do you believe is more reasonable?

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    You can make a claim of probability, but not necessity. Further more, in science, we are careful that we can always test our inductive reasoning multiple times, to see if it is invalid. There is absolutely no way to test the theory you are trying to argue for.
    I would also like to point out that we have tested this and science seems to be obsessed with this question. That is how we found molecules, electrons, quarks. The implementation of this very idea.

    Also, this seems like a strange appeal to "our inability", as though it were some weakness in the argument being made. Your statement seems to say that because we can not see any further, there must be nothing beyond what we see.


    I would think that, that is actually a weaker position than the assumption of #1.





    So, let me sum it up, and then after a few more rounds, maybe we can agree for sake of argument, and get to your other points

    #1 is based on the idea that stuff is made of more stuff Ad infinity.
    In order to deny #1, you must make and hold the claim. That there is something that is actually made of Nothing.


    Is that your position?, and can you support it.
    I believe I have shown mine to be supported by both our observations (Which affirm the veracity of "stuff is made of stuff") and of the logically reasonableness of the question "What is this made of".

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    A. I don't see you proving a "thinking" cause. Only a point whereby you argue the universe should break down.
    I want to go a few more rounds with #1, before we move on to the rest of the argument.
    I hope I have not skipped any point that you felt relevant to #1.
    To serve man.

  11. #11
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    733
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say that just because we understand cause and effect doesn't mean that everything must have a cause. It's hardly illogical, ceteris paribus, to postulate an "uncaused cause". But on the other hand, any such postulation is not necessarily equivalent to the Abrahamic God.
    ďWhen men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I donít care if they are shot themselves."

    - Herbert Spencer

  12. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,626
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    I skipped a bit of your post because my responses were getting repetitive, so just the unrepetitive responses are being posted.

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    Please support / explain this more.
    Unless it is that these objects are NOT made of other "stuff" then it won't defeat #1. (I've made the mistake of thinking that was your position once)

    I think you are getting away from what you said earlier

    As long as it is made of smaller more elementary things, then dividing is not necessary. I'll go back and edit the OP to reflect this change.


    I'm pointing out that the very idea of a elementary particle is contrary to logic. Such a "particle" would be super natural in nature. The equivalent of "Will".
    MT, the point of a proof is not the statement of "because I say so". You actually have to demonstrate why the idea of an elementary particle needs to be "super natural" in nature. Why is this? Why is it the equivalent of "will"?


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I don't think I'm being reckless with inductive reasoning.
    The question (What is this) is valid with no reasonable limitation in sight. I'm simply applying the implications of it.

    This reminds me of Gravity. In fact, I'm not saying that "It will happen again".. I'm saying it's unreasonable to conclude that it won't happen again.
    And until some test fails in a way that is not due to the limitations of the test itself. It seems to make the most sense that the question of "What is this made of" will always remain valid.

    "I don't think" =/= argument, MT.

    The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is no "reasonable limitation in sight." You have to prove this, you can't just claim it. So why?

    We've split particles up from molecules to atoms to subatomic particles. (And in fact, you haven't been arguing reasonableness, you've been arguing logical necessity, so this claim too is invalid) That's a statistic of N=3. That's not convincing enough even for an argument of probability, using inductive reasoning.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    The position opposite of "Stuff is made of Stuff" (a rewording of #1), is that Some stuff is not made of stuff.

    I'm not sure you realize that you are taking the latter position.
    Which do you believe is more reasonable?
    You are not being nearly pedantic enough with your diction.

    A = "Stuff is made up of more basic stuff"
    ~A = ~"Stuff is made up of more basic stuff" = "Stuff is not made out of more basic stuff" =/= "Stuff is made out of nothing"

    Clearly, the stuff is "something", not "nothing." It is merely not made out of something more basic. (You're equivocating "stuff" and "more basic stuff", which is the logical fallacy that leads you to this false conclusion)

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    I would also like to point out that we have tested this and science seems to be obsessed with this question. That is how we found molecules, electrons, quarks. The implementation of this very idea.

    Also, this seems like a strange appeal to "our inability", as though it were some weakness in the argument being made. Your statement seems to say that because we can not see any further, there must be nothing beyond what we see.
    I'm not arguing our inability to find smaller particle of sub-divisions of particles. I'm arguing that it is not true that there must be a most-elementary particle which necessarily violates logic.


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    #1 is based on the idea that stuff is made of more stuff Ad infinity.
    In order to deny #1, you must make and hold the claim. That there is something that is actually made of Nothing.


    Is that your position?, and can you support it.
    I believe I have shown mine to be supported by both our observations (Which affirm the veracity of "stuff is made of stuff") and of the logically reasonableness of the question "What is this made of".


    I want to go a few more rounds with #1, before we move on to the rest of the argument.
    I hope I have not skipped any point that you felt relevant to #1.
    To sum it up:

    A. I neither believe nor have argued that something is made of nothing.
    B. I find fault with your argument that something which is elementary/primeval is necessarily logic-violating.
    C. I find fault with that fact that you have not demonstrated that your inductive reasoning from 3 cases can and should be extended to an infinite number of cases.

  13. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    I skipped a bit of your post because my responses were getting repetitive, so just the unrepetitive responses are being posted.
    First of all, thanks for your reply's I have no intention of going in circles. So I suggest that if you find nothing new, we may agree with #1 for the sake of argument, and continue to your other points.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is no "reasonable limitation in sight." You have to prove this, you can't just claim it. So why?
    Your demanding that I prove a negative. "Demonstrate there is no".
    That is not possible.

    If you wish to counter the argument being made, perhaps you should simply disprove it by explaining and demonstrating the limitation.
    After all, that is what is demanded of those who say "Biological evolution" has its limits.

    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    We've split particles up from molecules to atoms to subatomic particles (edit) That's a statistic of N=3. That's not convincing enough even for an argument of probability, using inductive reasoning.
    You have started your "N=3" at a false and very arbitrary starting point.

    You would have to back up on your scale a little. You have to start with the entire universe.
    Which is made up of Galaxies.. which are made up of etc. I'm not sure what your N value would end up being, but it would be a heck of a lot bigger than 3.
    Thus starting at a particle is simply wrong.

    Wouldn't you agree?


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is no "reasonable limitation in sight." You have to prove this, you can't just claim it. So why?
    Because there is no reason to believe that something exists which is not made of something more elemental.
    I dare say we can't even conceive of such a thing.
    As for proof, I have offered up all that we have observed to exist. Which you have low-balled to a value of 3.

    If you want to counter, you need to explain the very concept of something which is not made of a more elemental thing.

    You can not simply write off the point as "Well, It's possible that there exists something which is not made of a more elemental thing". You must offer something more than just "it's possible You have to demonstrate how it is possible. Or at least give some logical reasoning behind it. As it stand, the concept is 1) Against what we have observed so far. 2) Undefined.


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    Clearly, the stuff is "something", not "nothing." It is merely not made out of something more basic. (You're equivocating "stuff" and "more basic stuff", which is the logical fallacy that leads you to this false conclusion)
    Please explain this, and how it is possible, and what it would look like.

    What is something that can not be made of something more basic?

    The words "Made out of" imply something more basic. So your statement is self defeating.

    Personally, I simply don't understand the words you are putting together.
    How can something not be made of something more elemental?
    If it's not made of "nothing" .. what is it made of?.. Itself? and how can that be?


    Quote Originally Posted by GP
    I'm not arguing our inability to find smaller particle of sub-divisions of particles. I'm arguing that it is not true that there must be a most-elementary particle which necessarily violates logic.
    A thing which is built upon itself, is circular in nature.
    To say that particle X is made of particle X, is the definition of circular.
    Which means your using circular logic.


    Summary
    A) You not only have not argued for something being made of nothing, you have offered no reasoned argument to counter the observed fact that Stuff is made of more elemental stuff.

    B) Your insistence that my reasoning comes only from only 3 cases is false.

    C) The idea of an elementary thing, is circular in nature and self defeating as an idea.

    As I have shown how stuff is made of more elemental stuff, it is now your task to show that stuff does not have to be made of more elemental stuff, without resorting to circular reasoning such as "It is made of it's self" Or self defeating reasoning. Such as "It's made of" Which implies a more elemental thing.
    To serve man.

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Assumptions on the beginning
    • A1) It is finite, in that it occurred in a moment, namely the first moment.
      B1) It is evolutionary in that it started from nothing and worked it's way up to the point where we are now


    ----- The argument ----
    *=assumption
    [LIST][*]1) All things are made of smaller more elemental things.
    Changed from "All things can be divided into parts". GP
    MT, I would like to take part in this (Yes! I'm back! Won't be on ODN 24/7 like before but I'm definitely back).

    I will not address the entire OP at this point and I reserve the right to come back and address another part of it (if that's ok).

    Your argument appears to rely on an illogicality that you have yourself created. That is, you start off by making a logically incoherent assumption (A1) and then go on to show that the assumption is logically incoherent (as it doesn't logically fit with point (1) of your argument). You then conclude that the Universe is therefore the result of something that is capable of illogical actions and hence must be the result of intelligent creation.

    But let's deal with A1 first. In A1 you assume that "it (beginning of the unieverse) had occurred in a moment, namely the first moment". But how can there be a "first moment"? Whatever moment you can think of, we can always imagine a moment immediately preceeding it. Correct? Let me make it more clear. If there was a time 0 (and there can't have been but I won't go there just yet), then at time 0 there is no universe. At time 1 there was. But is time 1 the first moment? It can't be. What about time 0.5? This regression of course goes on and on.

    From above, there can't have been a first moment. And if there was never a first moment then you can easily imagine an infinite regression into smaller and smaller "moments" in which smaller and smaller reactions take place with more and more elemental processes involved. This is then completely consistent with all things being divided into parts.
    Last edited by Allocutus; May 10th, 2009 at 10:07 PM.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  15. #15
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLOCUTUS
    MT, I would like to take part in this
    Welcome back. This is the argument I "teased" you about a while back. Glad you are able to make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLOCUTUS
    I will not address the entire OP at this point and I reserve the right to come back and address another part of it (if that's ok)
    *L*.... Your so sexy when you use lawyer talk.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLOCUTUS
    From above, there can't have been a first moment. And if there was never a first moment then you can easily imagine an infinite regression into smaller and smaller "moments" in which smaller and smaller reactions take place with more and more elemental processes involved. This is then completely consistent with all things being divided into parts.
    So as not to confuse these two separate arguments I shall name them Angle #1, and #2. I'll try not to get confused going forward.


    -- Angle #1 -- (I concede)
    Let me get this strait. You are using another example of an illogical beginning, to show that our beginning was in-fact logical?

    Thus, I concede your point. There could logically be no first moment.

    The problem is, your augment only proves my point. That our beginning is at it's heart illogical, and thus requires a force capable of illogical actions. So in defeating my #1, you simply replace it with another, which inevitably leads to my #3.

    (I think this line of reasoning only leads to a rewording of my argument. And thus doesn't actually further the debate. But that's just me, and I'm sure you will offer a more than spectacular rebuttal)


    --Angle #2-- (I challenge)
    I would like to point out that this is only a rewording of my original argument.
    As time is (defined as) a concept based on the number of reactions that occur between another reaction.(Like 1 year is a reference to 1 physical revolution around the sun). Thus the problem understanding "The first moment", is a problem caused by the infinite divisibility of actual things into more elemental things. Thus me conceding to your argument is a bit self serving, because I am simply agreeing that my argument is correct.
    **

    Quote Originally Posted by SPACETODAY
    Time. Time is a human perception defined as the length of an interval separating two points on a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. The intervals are measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, years.http://www.spacetoday.org/Time/TimeExplained.html
    http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20Time.htm
    http://www.sankey.ws/time.html
    (Reading these links I see that time is always in reference to things)


    Summary
    1) Time is a rewording of my argument, and thus proves my point #3 (Angle #1)

    2) Time is the side effect of my argument, and thus can't be used to disprove #1.

    ** "One is conceptual: time, according to this argument, is by definition nothing more than a system of temporal relations among things and events, so that the idea of a period of time without change turns out to be incoherent. " (Angle #2)






    --- Side thought---
    Question about time.


    ... thanks Allo, for making my head explode.
    ** http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim
    Last edited by MindTrap028; May 13th, 2009 at 03:18 PM.
    To serve man.

  16. #16
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So as not to confuse these two separate arguments I shall name them Angle #1, and #2. I'll try not to get confused going forward.
    MT, you have managed to confuse me. I can't see TWO arguments in what I was saying. I only see one. I again quote (myself):

    Quote Originally Posted by Allo-that's me
    From above, there can't have been a first moment. And if there was never a first moment then you can easily imagine an infinite regression into smaller and smaller "moments" in which smaller and smaller reactions take place with more and more elemental processes involved. This is then completely consistent with all things being divided into parts.
    This basically says that there can't be a "first moment" as time is (as per our assumptions) infinitely reducable (as per your own assumptions).

    You concede that point and that's fine. But would you please elaborate as to what is the "second angle" which you don't concede?

    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    -- Angle #1 -- (I concede)
    Let me get this strait. You are using another example of an illogical beginning, to show that our beginning was in-fact logical?

    Thus, I concede your point. There could logically be no first moment.

    The problem is, your augment only proves my point. That our beginning is at it's heart illogical, and thus requires a force capable of illogical actions. So in defeating my #1, you simply replace it with another, which inevitably leads to my #3.

    (I think this line of reasoning only leads to a rewording of my argument. And thus doesn't actually further the debate. But that's just me, and I'm sure you will offer a more than spectacular rebuttal)
    I don't agree that this leads to any conclusion that our beginning is illogical. I can't see anything illogical with time being infinitely reducable (and the same with matter). Do you? Because if so then we have to change the assumption in point (1) of your opening argument (note: referring to point 1 of your actual argument, not to be confused with Assumption1).


    Quote Originally Posted by MT
    --Angle #2-- (I challenge)
    I would like to point out that this is only a rewording of my original argument.
    As time is (defined as) a concept based on the number of reactions that occur between another reaction.(Like 1 year is a reference to 1 physical revolution around the sun). Thus the problem understanding "The first moment", is a problem caused by the infinite divisibility of actual things into more elemental things. Thus me conceding to your argument is a bit self serving, because I am simply agreeing that my argument is correct.
    **
    Ok, this is the part that I don't understand as I have no idea which part of my argument it is that you call "angle 2".
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  17. #17
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    I don't agree that this leads to any conclusion that our beginning is illogical. I can't see anything illogical with time being infinitely reducable (and the same with matter). Do you?
    The reason you don't see a problem is possibly due to the fact that time is hard to understand itself.
    As "Time" is not my argument, I'm not sure how IT not being illogical matters to my argument.

    For one thing, I don't consider time a "Thing". As far as I can tell it is a dimension, which only define "Things".
    In the case of time... water would still be water even if time was not a factor in it's definition. (IE all things stop).


    I will readdress my two counters to your time argument that you have made so far.
    But first a note about "Time" itself.

    There are apparently two ways to view time.
    ** http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim
    1) Reductionist = Time does not exist independently of the events that occur in time.

    2) Platonism = "time is like an empty container into which things and events may be placed; but it is a container that exists independently of what (if anything) is placed in it."

    These two ideas dictate what kind of response I can take to your argument (Which I assume is aimed at defeating mine, and not agreeing with it)


    -----
    From the idea of Reductionist. Your argument is simply a restating of my argument, and your
    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    From above, there can't have been a first moment. And if there was never a first moment then you can easily imagine an infinite regression into smaller and smaller "moments" in which smaller and smaller reactions take place with more and more elemental processes involved. This is then completely consistent with all things being divided into parts.
    Is really a concession of my #1, and #2 (Not sure if you are aware of that)

    If not, then please explain how there can "not be a first moment", AND we can still have an evolutionary beginning (#2).

    -------
    From the idea of Platonism. Your argument is a shifting of my argument. In that while mine is about "Things" yours is about a "dimension". We may as well be arguing about height or length. So even if I concede that it is not illogical for time to exist in a similar manner it doesn't matter because; the make up of "things" does not exist in the same way time does. Time (Past, present and future) can all exist at once (Which is the assumption of Platonism). Things on the other hand, are not be built that way. You can't start with a car, and then put the thing together. If Hydrogen and oxygen are required to make water, then they must come first no matter if there be an infinite time to do it in or not. For a dimension it is possible to start in the middle, for a reaction you can not. Time viewed as a jar, is not a magic jar where cause and effect have no meaning. The problem comes in when we consider that time did have a starting point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    I don't agree that this leads to any conclusion that our beginning is illogical. I can't see anything illogical with time being infinitely reducable (and the same with matter). Do you? Because if so then we have to change the assumption in point (1) of your opening argument (note: referring to point 1 of your actual argument, not to be confused with Assumption1).
    I'm not really prepared to debate "time" at length out side it's relevance to "Things" infinite reduction. I still see it as illogical for a universe with a beginning to have it's foundation in an infinitely reducible foundation. (Time or no). Why don't you?


    Currently I stand that time is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand, because I see no reason to assume the platonist stance on time. Instead my argument assumes time exists in the sense defined by reductionism.
    Supported by the fact that, that is how we currently define time.
    Quote Originally Posted by SPACETODAY
    Time. Time is a human perception defined as the length of an interval separating two points on a nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future. The intervals are measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, years.http://www.spacetoday.org/Time/TimeExplained.html

    I hope that was a better explanation than the one I first offered.
    To serve man.

  18. #18
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The reason you don't see a problem is possibly due to the fact that time is hard to understand itself.
    As "Time" is not my argument, I'm not sure how IT not being illogical matters to my argument.

    For one thing, I don't consider time a "Thing". As far as I can tell it is a dimension, which only define "Things".
    In the case of time... water would still be water even if time was not a factor in it's definition. (IE all things stop).


    I will readdress my two counters to your time argument that you have made so far.
    But first a note about "Time" itself.

    There are apparently two ways to view time.
    ** http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/#RedPlaResTim
    1) Reductionist = Time does not exist independently of the events that occur in time.

    2) Platonism = "time is like an empty container into which things and events may be placed; but it is a container that exists independently of what (if anything) is placed in it."

    These two ideas dictate what kind of response I can take to your argument (Which I assume is aimed at defeating mine, and not agreeing with it)


    -----
    From the idea of Reductionist. Your argument is simply a restating of my argument, and your

    Is really a concession of my #1, and #2 (Not sure if you are aware of that)

    If not, then please explain how there can "not be a first moment", AND we can still have an evolutionary beginning (#2).

    -------
    From the idea of Platonism. Your argument is a shifting of my argument. In that while mine is about "Things" yours is about a "dimension". We may as well be arguing about height or length. So even if I concede that it is not illogical for time to exist in a similar manner it doesn't matter because; the make up of "things" does not exist in the same way time does. Time (Past, present and future) can all exist at once (Which is the assumption of Platonism). Things on the other hand, are not be built that way. You can't start with a car, and then put the thing together. If Hydrogen and oxygen are required to make water, then they must come first no matter if there be an infinite time to do it in or not. For a dimension it is possible to start in the middle, for a reaction you can not. Time viewed as a jar, is not a magic jar where cause and effect have no meaning. The problem comes in when we consider that time did have a starting point.


    I'm not really prepared to debate "time" at length out side it's relevance to "Things" infinite reduction. I still see it as illogical for a universe with a beginning to have it's foundation in an infinitely reducible foundation. (Time or no). Why don't you?


    Currently I stand that time is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand, because I see no reason to assume the platonist stance on time. Instead my argument assumes time exists in the sense defined by reductionism.
    Supported by the fact that, that is how we currently define time.



    I hope that was a better explanation than the one I first offered.
    I think I understand better now.

    Firstly, I would argue that if things are infinitely reducable then time is also infinitely reducable. (and I won't argue that now because I have a better idea)

    Secondly, the entire debate depends on what you mean by our universe. You must either mean that it is the universe as we know it (as in, some other form of universe may have existed prior to it) OR that it is EVERYTHING (as in, nothing could have existed before it).

    Let's take them in turn:

    1. Some other form of universe may have existed before ours.

    If we take this view then your "clarification point (1)" expressely allows different laws to apply to that other form of universe. You're not requiring that in that form of universe all things are made of smaller and more elemental things. What this means is that a transition from that form of universe to our form of universe doesn't breach any laws of science or logic because you haven't specified any such laws that would apply to the previous form of universe.


    2. There was nothing before our universe.

    If there was nothing prior to the existence of our universe then there were also no dimensions. This includes time. Since time did not exist prior to our universe, there has never been such a thing as "prior to our universe" in the first place. It's not even correct to say that NOTHING EXISTED prior to our universe as such an epoch never existed in the first place. There was no such time as "before our universe". From this, it follows that our universe has never actually come into existence. It has always existed. This is where the concept of time actually does come into play but I'll leave that until your rebuttal.

    Finally, I would like you to please clarify for me why it is that a "bottom up evolutionary beginning" is impossible; in other words how that conclusion (in your point 2) flows from your point 1. In fact, please be a little more specific as to what you mean by "bottom up" in this context.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,051
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Firstly, I would argue that if things are infinitely reducable then time is also infinitely reducable. (and I won't argue that now because I have a better idea)
    That would be because time is based on things (reductionist)

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    Finally, I would like you to please clarify for me why it is that a "bottom up evolutionary beginning" is impossible; in other words how that conclusion (in your point 2) flows from your point 1. In fact, please be a little more specific as to what you mean by "bottom up" in this context.
    --Bottom up
    Is the idea that our universe started in a more basic state and has evolved into it's current form. We hear this all the time when speaking of the big bang. That early on our universe was made mostly of hydrogen or something else.This stance does not make sense when we consider that there is no "Most basic" building block (#1). So that sort of beginning is impossible. (#2)

    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    1. Some other form of universe may have existed before ours.

    If we take this view then your "clarification point (1)" expressely allows different laws to apply to that other form of universe. You're not requiring that in that form of universe all things are made of smaller and more elemental things. What this means is that a transition from that form of universe to our form of universe doesn't breach any laws of science or logic because you haven't specified any such laws that would apply to the previous form of universe.

    1) That doesn't explain away the illogical beginning of our existence. That is only to suppose a "naturalistic, and illogical" beginning. Which is addressed in my Argument.



    Quote Originally Posted by ALLO
    2. There was nothing before our universe.
    This is the more complex argument to understand.

    There doesn't seem to be any reason to suppose that there is "Nothing" outside of our universe. Because our universe had a beginning.
    If we admit that there is nothing outside our universe, then what we are left with is simply an origin that is based on "Something from nothing", which is illogical. Which is just another version of "naturalistic, and illogical".



    Your current argument is simply a concession of my #4. IMO.
    Quote Originally Posted by OP
    # 4) If our universe has it's start in a naturalistic illogical process (IE not bound by cause and effect) Then the first assumptions of science is false. (That being that the universe operates according to laws)
    So, if the argument against my #1... still leads to #4.. I'm content to concede those, and continue at that point.
    Last edited by MindTrap028; May 14th, 2009 at 03:14 AM.
    To serve man.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    31
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trap #1

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    But let's deal with A1 first. In A1 you assume that "it (beginning of the unieverse) had occurred in a moment, namely the first moment". But how can there be a "first moment"? Whatever moment you can think of, we can always imagine a moment immediately preceeding it. Correct? Let me make it more clear. If there was a time 0 (and there can't have been but I won't go there just yet), then at time 0 there is no universe. At time 1 there was. But is time 1 the first moment? It can't be. What about time 0.5? This regression of course goes on and on.

    From above, there can't have been a first moment. And if there was never a first moment then you can easily imagine an infinite regression into smaller and smaller "moments" in which smaller and smaller reactions take place with more and more elemental processes involved. This is then completely consistent with all things being divided into parts.
    I almost can't participate during these days...

    Anyway, it's a mistake to say there was a first moment because you are trying to make absolutely certain something infinitely undefinable by measuring something unmeasurable (in the absolute sense).

    But, it is not wrong to say that there was a start or beginning.

 

 
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •