crispybits wrote:So as per your previous assertion, do I assume all the things you didn't directly reply to you admit you can't get around?
I got bored of rehashing this debate repeatedly, so kept only the main point. Assume what you like. I only need to find one flaw with your thought experiment to defeat it, so I kept the strongest one.
Nothing depends on context for sure. "There's nothing in the fridge" in the context of people talking about dinner means no substantial food. There might be some mustard or a can of beer or something, but it would be "there is nothing we can make a meal from in the fridge". "There's nothing in my pockets" wouldn't count pocket fluff or a tissue whatever if a policeman asked if you had anything in your pockets, as in "nothing illegal or important to you Mr Policeman"
"Nothing existed before God made nature" in the context of metaphysics is also very clear. Nothing natural existed. no natural phenomena, no natural structure, no natural laws. Nothing natural.
It is clear to you, but evidently not clear to me. I see it having multiple possible meanings, (see the Wikipedia article; it's actually talking about how "nothing" is defined in the realm of metaphysics) and I see your argument here as a way to semantically attempt to win the argument without addressing the main point. You are welcome to twist the words of your opponents in a debate whichever way you want, but that doesn't mean you've actually responded to what they're saying, and so in that sense you're making it more difficult to have a meaningful conversation. If you want to make progress and connect with people, as you say, then you would be better served by agreeing to meet on some common ground on what the terminology of your discussion is. Hammering a point home when you two don't even agree on what the words mean, that you are talking about, is a recipe for failure if the goal is effective communication.
Now, I don't claim to know what Viceroy was thinking. All I know is that just by a pure reading of his statement, considering all the possible meanings that one could use to hammer the point home, I don't think your argument holds up. I recommend that you two first define what you mean by what "existed" (if anything) prior to the "creation" of the universe.
Tell me what all those meanings are, or at least 2-3 of them. I don't see that article saying anything about metaphysics. I see it says physics says that nothing cannot even be described as empty space, because space is something.
And you know what? I had tried to connect with Viceroy by engaging him in a discussion about this, but someone came along and pissed all over the thought experiment I set up to engage him with without themselves asking him what he meant before they wasted both our time with their insistences that I provide proof about the non-existence of any and every extra-universal thing they can imagine. Go figure.
crispybits wrote:Tell me what all those meanings are, or at least 2-3 of them. I don't see that article saying anything about metaphysics. I see it says physics says that nothing cannot even be described as empty space, because space is something.
Here is an easy example to prove why your argument is short-sighted: if nothing existed before the universe, how could God have? Obviously creationists don't mean that God didn't exist when he created the universe.
crispybits wrote:The argument isn't "nothing existed". Again you twist it. The argument is "everything was created from nothing"
This means that, at some point, there was nothing. Did God exist when there was nothing?
And besides which I said the context was clear - nothing natural existed before nature - God is a supernatural entity.
We're discussing this passage:
Viceroy wrote:The point is that creation was made out of Nothing because there was nothing before creation. That Adam was made from the dust and then Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs is besides the point.
How did they know that the creation was basically made from nothing? That is the point!
Where does the idea of something being "natural" enter into this quote? Why are we even talking about "nature?"
"creation", in the context of "creation was made by God", is an obvious reference to the reailty we inhabit, or, to use another name for it, nature. Everything from the universe to the multiverse to the super-verse beyond that if you want to go there and then the hyper-verse beyond that in case you want me to disprove the existence of that too - it's all "nature" and therefore "natural". It's a word I brought into the discussion to stop you dragging us off down the mutliverse tangent, because it is omniversal (so to speak), it covers all the stuff that got made during the alleged "creation".
And "everything was created from nothing" doesn't mean that at any point there was only nothing. It just says that of all the things that make up everything, none of them existed until the point where everything was created. If I fill a fish tank with green goo by waving my hands around over the top of it, and it's proved it's not a magic trick with a physical explanation, then I could be said to have "created that green goo from nothing". But I existed, and the fish tank existed, etc. I only "created the green goo from nothing" in the context of talking about green goo and the lack of other sources of it.
Similarly, if nature is "created from nothing" then the context is of nature and the lack of other sources of nature. Except that without nature there is no time, as it is a natural phenomenon, and therefore no causality, so there is no need for a God figure to create anything, because nature can just appear. It doesn't have to follow any natural laws until after it already exists.
And I'll remind you of something here because I think I can predict where this goes next...
"But that doesn't prove anything!"
I don't HAVE to prove anything. I'm not trying to establish anything. I'm pointing out the logical flaw in assuming God is necessary for the universe to exist. I was just trying to do it by going step by step instead of just saying it and assuming that some people that don't understand will magically start to understand without any more detailed explanation of why.
God is still possible. He's just not essential or necessary any more.
crispybits wrote:"creation", in the context of "creation was made by God", is an obvious reference to the reailty we inhabit, or, to use another name for it, nature. Everything from the universe to the multiverse to the super-verse beyond that if you want to go there and then the hyper-verse beyond that in case you want me to disprove the existence of that too - it's all "nature" and therefore "natural". It's a word I brought into the discussion to stop you dragging us off down the mutliverse tangent, because it is omniversal (so to speak), it covers all the stuff that got made during the alleged "creation".
See, I just don't think this is logically defensible. You're creating this artificial construction where some things that we cannot perceive (e.g. multiverses) still count as being part of "reality," but somehow God is supernatural and not part of reality. What is the relevant quality of these things that makes some things part of "reality" and some things outside of "reality?" I would contend that there is no distinction. This is why I don't think the multiverse discussion is a tangent. But I'm not as confident in this argument as I am in the other things we're saying, so I probably won't continue this method of argumentation.
And "everything was created from nothing" doesn't mean that at any point there was only nothing. It just says that of all the things that make up everything, none of them existed until the point where everything was created. If I fill a fish tank with green goo by waving my hands around over the top of it, and it's proved it's not a magic trick with a physical explanation, then I could be said to have "created that green goo from nothing". But I existed, and the fish tank existed, etc. I only "created the green goo from nothing" in the context of talking about green goo and the lack of other sources of it.
I absolutely agree, and this is what I was saying all along. I think that this is what the creationists are saying too; they're not making a comment about what might exist outside of our universe, so much as saying that the stuff that we are made of, was at some point spontaneously created instead of converting some other material into it. But this point of view, while completely sensible, defeats your original thought experiment. The multiverse thing makes it obvious: one simple scenario that is consistent with what you are saying is that there exists some sort of higher-dimensional plane or higher-level space on which God plays dice, and our universe was created from nothing, inside that higher-level plane. But even if you don't buy that, there's still a flaw because if you are conceding that something existed before (more properly, besides) our universe, then that directly contradicts the original assumption that there was "nothing", which is necessary for your simple deductive reasoning thought experiment to do its damage.
With that, I will withdraw from the discussion. I honestly don't want to hinder fruitful discussion, and I'm sorry that this got so protracted. I wanted to make it clear that effective communication between people holding wildly different vantage points can only work if you start from a point of common agreement, and that discussions of metaphysics are fraught with difficulties unless you are precise with the terminology you use for your arguments. I hope I have done so. Either way, carry on.
I'm saying that everything that we, as creatures of nature and limited to observing and experiencing the natural, can ever scientifically observe or experience is part of nature. God by the definition is without (besides) from this structure. Move him inside into the multiverse and you're removing his "omni" qualities. How can a being who exists as a part of a metaphysical plane/dimension be all powerful, all knowing, etc, unless he occupies all of that dimension/plane, and all of any dimensions/planes within the top level one? So you've lost the definition of the Christian God, and the argument becomes about some "God" that is just defined as "creator".
The creation view (and I would hesitate to use creationist for the same reason as I try not to use christian scientist, they have narrower connotations than someone who just believes that God created everything or a christian who is a scientist). And the context of "nothing" is identical between their use of it and mine, so unless you can show how talking about identical concepts somehow creates inconsistencies that argument doesn't really hold water either.
Metsfanmax wrote:With that, I will withdraw from the discussion. I honestly don't want to hinder fruitful discussion, and I'm sorry that this got so protracted. I wanted to make it clear that effective communication between people holding wildly different vantage points can only work if you start from a point of common agreement, and that discussions of metaphysics are fraught with difficulties unless you are precise with the terminology you use for your arguments. I hope I have done so. Either way, carry on.
Funny that, seeing as how that was EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO!!!!
It was someone else that decided that one party that they weren't part of needed speaking for without allowing the "effective communication" to even begin to take shape.....
You've definitely showed the difficulty with metaphysics, the way you had to keep shifting your terms to try and find another imaginary supernatural extension of nature which I would have to provide evidence to disprove before my argument could be considered, when you never actually provided any evidence to support any part of any of them in the first place. (You have to talk about the Christian God as Viceroy intended! / God might be an interdimensional alien) (You have to only talk about things we can observe / Multiverses and extra-universal temporal dimensions blah blah) (In the time before causality / causality is just a way we process time, so maybe causality is time)
(Sorry, still narked I just had to spend 6 pages arguing with you to get absolutely nowhere and without even so much as an apology for fucking up the thought experiment I built to engage people which you then wrecked and proceeded to tell me I should try to engage people. Cheers.....)
BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think? ---------------------------------------------------
So now you have science without scientists? Are you sure you didn't just make this up?
You make an appeal to authority. At first it's "scientists". Then it's "science" generally. again, show me the scientific reference that tells us the universe is made up of three and only three elements. Not whether YOU thing so, not even whether I think so. I want the science that you claim to have encountered that makes this common knowledge. Anyone else, feel free to help him out and quote us this bit from your favourite research paper or textbook (not creationist website).
crispybits wrote:Firstly, if we have causality now, then we've always had it for as long as we've had a temporal structure to have it in. As I pointed out (you must have missed it) the mechanic of causality is meaningless without a "before" and an "after". We need time to make causality work. We didn't have time before the universe/multiverse/etc was created from nothing, therefore neither could we have had causality. So I have defended the argument, unless you want to explain how causality can exist outside of any known temporal structure.
The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.
Now, I'm no expert, but I think you're at odds with the majority of physicists there.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
BTW: Corrections have been noted and updated so that names are not necessary. The use of the word "scientist" was my bad. Maybe I should change that to "Science teaches us or shows us..." What do you think? ---------------------------------------------------
So now you have science without scientists? Are you sure you didn't just make this up?
You make an appeal to authority. At first it's "scientists". Then it's "science" generally. again, show me the scientific reference that tells us the universe is made up of three and only three elements. Not whether YOU thing so, not even whether I think so. I want the science that you claim to have encountered that makes this common knowledge. Anyone else, feel free to help him out and quote us this bit from your favourite research paper or textbook (not creationist website).
Science says at least 112 elements in the universe.
Metsfanmax wrote:The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.
How could time exist prior to creation?
The second most visible and obvious evidence for the existence of God is an expanding universe. The first is, how monstrously huge this universe really is. But the fact that this incredibly huge Universe is expanding and has been doing so for some 13 to 16 Billion Years is mind boggling. If you really consider this with an open mind, how can you not see the hand of God in creation.
In the video they said that the Universe has been expanding from 10 to 20 Billion Years but more recent observations suggest 13 to 16 Billion Years. I don't know exactly how they come up with the number of years but it is safe to assume that if the galaxies are rushing away from each other that at one time they should have been closer to one another. Else how can you rush away?
I think that the the direction in which the galaxies are flying in can also be determined by the Doppler effect. So when you align all the directions together you get an idea of a more central location that the galaxies began their journey through time. But how does Time fit into all of this?
Einstein hypothesized that the universe must be related and work together some how. He was not the first to come up with this. If you've ever seen a Japanese Rock Garden and then ask the "Gardener" what it means he would explain to you that by moving one pebble in the Garden, you alter the destiny of the universe. That is what Einstein is basically saying with his special relativity theory and that idea was hundreds if not thousands of years before Einstein hit upon it.
But basically speaking, all three elements, Time, Space and Matter are related to each other so that by changing one you change the other. So if the Universe had a beginning some 14 Billion years ago, which of course implies a Beginner or Creator, then so also had all three of these elements their beginning at the same point in creation. To say that Time existed before Space and Matter, is to say that Time is not a part of our Universe and that simply is not the case. Either something is a part of the universe or it is not. And if the three are related then the three began when the Universe began. It's really just that simple.
Also it is safe to point out that if something is not a part of our universe, then it most likely can not be observed. Something outside of the universe, like a Creator God, can not be observed by the universe as the universe can only observe things inside of the universe. This is why we see and detect the presence of Time. Because Time is inside of and a part of this universe just as Matter and Space is also.
As a thought experiment I would like to suggest that when the Universe was only 5 Billion years old, that this part of Time and Space that we currently occupy did not exist. The universe at 5 Billion years old only had the stretch of space of 10 Billion Light Years in Diameter. So this Thirteenth Billion Light year that we call our home, our time and place, had not yet come to exist in a 5 Billion year old universe.
The Universe is constantly expanding in an outwardly direction from the epicenter of what we call the "Big Bang." So then at this point in time, the universe being 13 Billion Years old, the Time, Space and Matter of 20 Billion years from now does not yet exist. That is to say that the future has yet to be created. Along with the Space, Time and Matter that goes with it.
Currently our universe is 13 Billion years old so that means that it is safe to assume that our universe has a diameter of 26 Billion Light Years across. There is nothing that exist outside of the sphere of this 26 Billion Light Year Universe because everything outside of the sphere of this universe is yet to be created. Not Time nor Space nor Matter exist outside of the universe. If it does exist then it would be observational and a part of the universe and we could then say that the Universe is not 13 Billion years old but older.
We certainly can not detect light from the other side of this universe because of the distance and speed that light travels. If the other side of our universe is 26 Billion light years away then it takes light from the other side 26 billion light years to get to us. But if we are also moving at light speed or close to it away from the epicenter then the point will come when we will no longer be able to detect any light from the other side. We can how ever see and observe light in front of us and around us from surrounding galaxies, even if it is all also moving away from us as well, but we can observe it more easily then light from all the way on the other side of the universe, some 26 Billion light years away.
When scientist speak of empty space not being empty, they are referring to the space inside of our created universe. But beyond our Universe there is no empty space. There is simply nothing that exist outside of the sphere of this universe just as there is nothing that exist outside of the sphere of the Creator. The word universe means, all that there is. So outside of this universe there is no Time, Space or Matter. Not yet anyway! ---------------------------------------------------------------
Neoteny wrote:Science says at least 112 elements in the universe.
And I bet your butt that all 112 element reside inside of Space, Time and Matter.
Metsfanmax wrote:The argument I have consistently made, is that there's absolutely no basis for the claim that time did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. But this devolves into the multiverse discussion below, so let's keep it there.
Now, I'm no expert, but I think you're at odds with the majority of physicists there.
If you ask nearly any working astrophysicist or cosmologist, they will tell you that we simply cannot yet know anything about the state of affairs prior to about one Planck time after the Big Bang. The best we can presently say about our knowledge of the universe is that the universe was once in a very hot, very dense state; we cannot say what happened before this very hot and dense state because do not yet have a physical model that explains the nature of the physical forces at temperatures and densities that large. It is certainly the case that time and space no longer have the same meaning that they presently do, in such a hot and dense state. But it is entirely possible that prior to whatever caused this hot and dense state, there was another era of ordered motion of a universe-like structure. This is, for example, the idea behind the "cyclic universe" model (which was widely accepted as likely until it became clear that the universe is very nearly geometrically flat, making this situation unlikely). Since, as I pointed out, "time" is really just a mathematical way to describe the macroscopic ordering of events, there's simply no way to rule out the existence of time (or, conversely prove it) prior to whatever the hot and dense state was.
Quoting from my copy of Carroll and Ostlie's "Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" (which is the most commonly used senior undergraduate/graduate astrophysics textbook),
"Our current physical theories break down at times earlier than [the Planck time], and in fact the very notion of space and time as separate concepts dissolves before the Planck time. A quantum theory of gravity capable of describing this convoluted arena in which space and time have lost their familiar, separate identities has yet to be invented. After the Planck time, spacetime began to take on a more coherent structure as greater portions of it became causally connected. Exactly how time itself emerged from the Big Bang is a question to be pondered by physicists and philosophers alike."
I hope this sheds at least a little bit of light on the fact that there's still a lot we have to learn about the nature of time/causality and how it comes to be (which is why I took such serious exception to Viceroy and crispybits' individual methods of argumentation, which displayed a lot more confidence in the nature of physical causality than I think is justified with present knowledge). Incidentally, the notion of causality referenced in this quote is slightly different from the one that was being used in earlier discussions in this thread; in physics, causality generally refers to the idea that an event can only be caused by something that is close enough to have transmitted a "signal" of some kind, that was received by the event in time. Since the fastest signal speed we know of is the speed of light, we generally say something is acausal if it happens on timescales faster than the time that light can travel across the spatial extent of the event. It is related but distinct from logical causality, because from a metaphysical point of view there's no particular restriction on signal speeds; you could have a signal that travels at arbitrarily large speeds, that would satisfy the idea of causality in principle.
Still waiting for some authority other than a cc poster for the "three elements" thing. Remember, we are apparently shown this by "science". Not somebody betting their butt. Science.
Metsfanmax wrote:Quoting from my copy of Carroll and Ostlie's "Introduction to Modern Astrophysics" (which is the most commonly used senior undergraduate/graduate astrophysics textbook),
"Our current physical theories break down at times earlier than [the Planck time], and in fact the very notion of space and time as separate concepts dissolves before the Planck time. A quantum theory of gravity capable of describing this convoluted arena in which space and time have lost their familiar, separate identities has yet to be invented. After the Planck time, spacetime began to take on a more coherent structure as greater portions of it became causally connected. Exactly how time itself emerged from the Big Bang is a question to be pondered by physicists and philosophers alike."
So now you're saying that modern science says that the universe was in an acausal state in the planck time. This after arguing vehemently that we couldn't go from the acausal to the causal and this is why my theory was so flawed.
You couldn't make this stuff up
Edit
Just to make it crystal clear to you Mets - I have not claimed "there is definitely no God because there was definitely no causality", I am simply saying "there was not definitely causality, therefore there is not definitely a God because without definite causality there is no necessity for there to be a cause" (and I admit I did word earlier posts badly in some places, but this was a function of the thought experiment having to start from close to the theist position of ontological "proof", and this is why I was getting annoyed by your constant addition of "maybe this or that" - I can allow any possibilities you like into that argument and it holds - because none of them prove anything for sure and therefore do not provide a necessity for anything)
Perhaps if instead of jumping in to argue for the conclusion I was aiming to work towards through small, logical and easily understandable steps, if you'd allowed the theists to actually engage with the experiment you would have seen this. But you took it upon yourself to jump right to the end and ignore the purpose and struture of it, and then proclaim how you were right and I was wrong when in fact we were aiming for roughly the same idea, and then that I should engage when you were the one who blocked off my route to engagement.
Last edited by crispybits on Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:33 am, edited 5 times in total.
macbone wrote:Evidence: My wife. Thank you, God. =)
You're clearly not being objective here. What about the 3.5 billion men who doesn't have your wife for themselves? If there was a god we'd all have macbone's wife!
AoG for President of the World!! I promise he will put George W. Bush to shame!
