Im getting tired now but i like your arguments ...i just want to say that i dont have a closed mindover either finite or infinite(how could i there is no proof either way) options but at the moment i am at an infinite position .I think that the universe has a start and finish as we know it but that 'before' the start it was very different meaning that it is always changing.
Hey Bass, please realize I'm not trying to upset you. If you can't explain how your "creation" concept scientifically applies to the reality of the universe, then it's ok. Please don't worry about it. This is only a scientific discussion. The last thing I wanna do is make people upset.
You know, people don't have an answer for everything. This is why we have faith. All humans have faith. Peace!
P1 does not define the word exist scientifically. Until you DEFINE the word 'exist' unambiguously at this point, you have nothing. Thus this argument is logically invalid and scientifically invalid.
P2 is a bald assertion and commits fallacy Begging the Question.
You are making some wild assertions. It is not my job to prove a negative. You need to PROVE your positive claims. The BURDEN OF PROOF is on you. As a scientist, you SHOULD know this!
I have asked you MANY times already: PLEASE SHOW 1 OF SOMETHING THAT IS CREATED.
Enough of the religious poetry please. Just explain your concept of CREATION in the context of REALITY, and not using heart-felt emotion - please!
I have already showed how the eternality of the universe is logically impossible. You are trying to make it look like I didn't. No offense, but any more diversive and insulting comments like that, and I will delete your comments. Continue up with it afterwords, and I will block you from my channel.
I know you can do better than this. So please do not change subjects and insult me because I am religious.
Oh Bass, how can u say I am insulting you. I didn't call u any bad names. If someone did, that would be childish. We are having an intellectual exchange here.
You are making a claim about creation, and I am asking u to scientifically explain it. Science uses theories to explain logically and rationally how some event happens. That is all you are expected to do about your concept of CREATION.
Hate to break it to you, but you didn't. Even William Lane Craig's video, which you recommended, admits that there's no logical problems with an infinite amount of time in the past.
Bass, the ancient Greeks knew the universe was eternal and evolving. They even knew at 600 BC that the species were evolving. This was not something new in 1970 like the church told you.
Nothing can be created. Abrahamic religions conjured up the word "create". All is assembled from pre-existing matter.
"Bass, the ancient Greeks knew the universe was eternal" - Pardon the crassness of it, but if you allowed me to use the same logic, it would be safe to say that because the Greeks "knew" there existed a higher entity, it therefore must make it true.
"Nothing can be created." - Come on bro. That's not science, that's metaphysics. You're still presupposing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct, and cannot be disproven which is a contradiction to the scientific method.
"What logic are u assuming I'm using, bass?" - You are saying that the Greeks KNEW that the universe was eternal, and therefore it must make the eternality of the universe true. Not only is this an overgeneralization of what the ancient Greeks actually believed, but it is also a form of the bare assertion fallacy. By claiming to know something to be true, it therefore must make the argument true. (cont.)
You are adding your own words Bass. Go read what I said. It's officially on the record. The stuff your church is feeding from 1970 forgot to take into account what the ancient civilizations said about the universe.
"It is not even metaphysics, it is religious magic." - I believe you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that your statement that "Nothing can be created" is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one.
"And who said anything about thermodynamics?" - The statement "Nothing can be created" is a metaphysical argument taken from the 2nd law which states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but rather convert into one another. (cont.)
You are introducing abstract terms into the discussion in order to change the topic. In magic we call this tactic MISDIRECTION. You need to be able to explain terms to a barmaid or a child, otherwise you don't know what they mean.
Draw us a picture of "mass" or "energy" since you use the concept of "create" (a verb) with them, hence treating them as objects (nouns).
"You are introducing abstract terms into the discussion in order to change the topic." - Matter is anything that takes up physical space. Mass is the density of that matter, similar to the weight of something. That's science not abstraction.
"There is not a single example of anything created" - Not only does your argument presuppose that the 2nd law is true in all cases, you also rely on stating that "there are no examples of created things" to make your argument true, which is the negative proof fallacy. In other words, you're relying on the unsupported negation of a first cause in order to make it false. That would be like me simply assuming that creation is true to make my argument correct, which is not the case in my video.
Bass, you are arguing with yourself here. When you are done arguing with yourself and using religious terms, then please show 1, just ONE of something that is CREATED.
"Your church conjured up the word "create"." - Finally, the origin of an idea does not prove it to be false. That's the genetic fallacy.
Even if it WERE correct that the Christian Church was the first to postulate the idea of creation, it doesn't do anything to disprove the idea itself.
Keep in mind that I am not saying that because a finite universe cannot be disproven, it therefore makes it true, That's an appeal to ignorance. I'm simply applying logic to the "eternal universe" arguments.
Bass, again you are putting words in my mouth so you can argue with a puppet.
Just cut the crap and let's talk about your concept of CREATION. Please show 1 thing that is created so we know that your concept of creation can be edified into reality.
Otherwise your "creation" concept is just conjured up nonsense you are trying to pass off as "snake oil". It's just another magical god idea - conceptual garbage invented by humans. Let's get real.
"Bass, again you are putting words in my mouth" - How so? Show me where I'm putting words in your mouth.
1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
I used logic to show how the universe CANNOT be eternal, showing how the universe is finite. Therefore, logically speaking, the universe is finite and was created by a cause. You have to give counterarguments to the video, not the shift the burden of proof.
Before you use Pastor William Craig's arguments, you should know that they commit the fallacy of Begging the Question, non-sequitor, circular, among others.
You like using the word "Science", but show none!
Show us scientifically how nothing (no space, no void, no god, etc.) is surreptitiously turned into something, like a rock, or a planet, or a star, etc. This is what your CREATION is about.
I'm still waiting to see your logical steps clearly presented and leading to a contradiction, so I'm forced to conclude that the concept of infinity inherently "violates the laws of logic."
If your disregard the domino analogy, I also said in the video to look up Dr. William Lane Craig's hotel analogy. It states the further absurdity in the argument for an eternal universe.
I find it suspicious that you continue to tell me I'm wrong, when you keep giving counterarguments that don't answer anything. "Mathematics is just one of those things that is certainly true." No offense intended, but you're gonna have to do better than this.
I said that "Mathematics is just those things which are certainly true" because that's what Mathematics is by definition. It is the study of axiomatic systems, which are the only conditions under which absolute truth can be asserted.
It's not a counterargument. All I can do against your argument is point out that you have constructed a faulty argument, which you have.
Your argument is wrong until you can prove your point. Until then, eternal time remains a possibility.
I assume you're referring to Hilbert's hotel paradox. It is called a paradox only because it leads to counterintuitive results. There is no logical contradiction in the thought experiment.
"It is the study of axiomatic systems, which are the only conditions under which absolute truth can be asserted." - I agree that is what mathematics is, however mathematics is not what is certainly true. It is the axioms THEMSELVES that are true. Mathematics is the method in which we MEASURE the axioms, so the likelihood that our theories fit the axioms is far less likely. To say that the METHOD is true, is where the fallacy of begging of question comes in.
Absolutely incorrect. Axioms are just assumptions. If I start off by assuming that you're a fish, it doesn't make it absolutely true that you're a fish.
What *is* absolutely true is that you're a fish if you're a fish.
That is, it is absolutely true that, if just these axioms hold, the theorems derived from them are correct.
Begging the question is assuming your conclusion. This is not begging the question.
First you say that mathematics "is the study of axiomatic systems, which are the only conditions under which absolute truth can be asserted." Then you say that "axioms are just assumptions". If they are just assumptions, wouldn't that make mathematics, just a bunch of assumptions too?
"You know that those theorems are absolutely 100% true when the assumptions hold." - That assumes that THEOREMS make the assumptions absolute, which assumes that the THEOREMS are absolutes but the assumptions are NOT. Absolute truth is truth that exists independently of other things; truth that is what is regardless of anything else. The truth you're defining is not absolute, but CONTINGENT.
"Your argument against the possibility of eternal time assumes that has a starting point" - Actually, that's a misunderstanding of the point that I was making. I was NOT holding the presupposition that time has a starting point. That was my CONCLUSION. When I said that I was going to give reasons as to why I don't believe in an eternal universe, the arguments I presented were the precise reasons as to why I rejected it. (cont.)
"that's a misunderstanding of the point that I was making"
No. You don't understand your point. Your *implicit* assumption is that time has a starting point. This assumption lies in your use of the word "reach." You say that we would never "reach" now.
"reach from where?" - x1101011x, this is an appeal to ignorance. If the amount of time before the present is endless, how could the present exist? That's is a contradiction.
P.S. This is NOT an appeal to ignorance because I'm NOT asserting that the universe is eternal. My claim is ONLY that your argument that the universe cannot be eternal is wrong.
An appeal to ignorance is "There's no evidence against X. Therefore X must be true." My claim is "There's no evidence against X. Therefore X is not necessarily false."
"An appeal to ignorance is "There's no evidence against X. Therefore X must be true." - That's precisely what your argument is. By saying that mathematics is just one of those things that is certainly true in EVERY principle, you're arguing that it cannot be refuted therefore it is true. Not all principles all principles in mathematics are true and the concept of infinity is one of those concepts. It is true that 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks. (cont.)
However, to argue that a rock of a SPECIFIC size is made up of an infinite number of particles is self-contradictory in itself and in reality. Some mathematics is true in reality, but not all of it.
No offense, but I can tell by the evidence in your premises that you're copying and pasting from other websites and you are not applying the quotes to the logic of your own objection.
Aslo I was actually GRANTING the definitions for 'infinite' and 'eternal' and applying logic to those definitions by giving real life examples. Therefore the argument that "time has a starting point" is not my beginning assumption, it is my CONCLUSION. Common sense really.
"Every domino before X (an endless number) would be knocked over." - If the numbers of dominoes before X is endless, then logically if they were to reach X, then they would have an end. So actually, you're granting my point.
Ha. I'll grant ambiguity to the term "endless." When I said it, I meant "infinite" and not "without end." I meant "infinite" because you use the word "endless" when you really meant "infinite."
Infinite just means a proper subset has the "same number" of elements.
I mean the definition of infinite. A set A is said to be infinite if there exists a bijection between A and a proper subset of A. That's what it means to be infinite.
"Mathematics is just those things that are certainly true." - In order to verify things that are certainly true, we cannot use terms such as just, because that begs the question. Sure mathematics is true, but only in terms of proposition at best. Mathematical concepts that bring forth propositions that are self-contradictory cannot be true. That's one of the laws of logic. By saying that that my argument is just plain wrong and does not apply, you're violating the laws of logic. (cont.)
Infinity is simply an idea, not a reality. In fact most mathematicians admit this because it violates the laws of logic. This you cannot deny, my friend.
I don't think they could exist outside of time. If they did, then I don't see how we would have particular events occur WITHIN time. Events would require the existence of other physical things in order to differentiate one event from another. Therefore if matter and space existed outside of time, then logically all events that occurred within time would be exactly the same. They would be no different from each other.
I think it would be more accurate to say that time/space/matter all Began to exist IN ITS CURRENT FORM at the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang? Who knows?
And because we don't know the exact process of the Big Bang YET, that gives credibility to a supernatural cause? The "God of Gaps"? Is that all this discussion is about? How droll.
"I think it would be more accurate to say that time/space/matter all Began to exist IN ITS CURRENT FORM at the Big Bang." - But doesn't that already assume infinity?
Infinity is a systematically contradictory concept. If it's contradictory, it cannot be true. If it cannot be true, then there doesn't exist any such possibility.
In order to make your point stand, you have to give valid arguments and evidence AGAINST the arguments I gave. Saying that there is still a possibility for infinity to occur in the universe is pure speculation.
Again it's NOT based on what we don't know about the universe but what we DO know. So can you refute that?
Actually, scientists have NOT said the universe has an absolute beginning. Science has only tracked all that is (matter, energy, time, et al) up to a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang. Any farther back in time the laws of the universe as we know them breaks down to a point where we don't understand yet (and I highly stress YET!!)
Thus the universe theoretically can be infinite. Only its form has changed.
Me? I'm some slob surfing YouTube. I got nothing to "admit" to. SCIENCE is still looking for the answers (just as science likes to do) and just hasn't gotten to the exact point of the Big Bang. I'm sure a lot of people with big, huge brains and big pocket protectors are working on the problem right now.
Simply put "We don't know" does NOT equal "Nothing."
2) "Simply put "We don't know" does NOT equal "Nothing."" - This is a strawman. The arguments I've presented in this video are not based on what we don't know, but what we DO know. Infinity is logically self-contradictory by its own admission. An argument that is contradictory cannot be true. Scientists agree that by the evidence, that time/space/matter all BEGAN to exist at the Big Bang. Both of these facts do not allow credibility to an eternal universe.
(cont.) Also if you admit that the Big Bang is the point at which the laws of physics break down, like scientists do, then the starting point you propose is ALSO not natural.
So you actually give more credibility to the supernatural hypothesis than you think.
One thing to think about when it comes to inifinity and finity BOTH are just ideas in are minds. One we can understand and the other we cannot. Finity applies rules to everything and with these rules we can understand the universe to some degree. Logic goes by these basic rules that apply to everything we know. Infinity however breaks these rules and becomes illogical, are brains ARE NOT capable of understanding nor comprehending what infinity is therefore if it doesn't make sense to us(CONT)
or fall with in our reasoning or logic, it cannot exist. The only way we look at things are terms of finity, is because thats what are lives our. Every moment, experience, event, birth, death, etc. ALL have a begining and an end. How we understand things is based upon how we relate to it. This is where logic comes from. Basically it comes down to the fact that everything in life, including life itself, is finite therefore logically everything else has to be to for us to understand it. (CONT)
Uhm... where are all these atheists that believe time is infinite back in the past? The Big Bang model has been extremely well established. Time and space are roughly 13.7 billion years old... I thought most atheists knew this. It's not even a matter of God or lack thereof, it's just the age of spacetime, similar to the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth in no way either establishes or rejects the notion of God, it has nothing to do with it.
"where are all these atheists that believe time is infinite back in the past?" - I've met a ton of them through experience. It's very sad that some people just continue to reject the beginning of the universe simply as a way of explaining away even the possibility of God's existence. You're correct about the age of the earth neither establishing or rejecting God's existence. Just out of curiosity, do you think the finite nature of the universe as a whole allows a possibility for God to exist?
This is usually where I ask people to define what they mean by God. If by God you simply mean the creator of the Universe, it's always possible and always will be possible entirely regardless of whether the Universe is infinite or not. There is and always will be a finite limit to what we can know about the origin of the Universe, at which point we can only guess. And sure, one might guess something they called God, whether the Universe is infinite or not.
Speaking of God... God, I HATE the YouTube comment system. Why don't comments show up as responses to the comment one was responding to half of the time?
Ok, so if the the universe is finite, that logically assumes that the physical has a cause. So would you conclude that the cause had to be nonphysical and uncaused, so as not to commit the fallacy of infinite regress?
Well, call me crazy, but I'm neither sure of infinite regression being a fallacy, nor that a cause is required for the Universe. Also, we have to be extremely careful when using words like "non-physical" in this respect. If by physical you mean real, then I can't believe there was a non-physical cause to the Universe, but if by non-physical you mean, outside of our current understanding of physics, it's perfectly possible, even plausible. Whether we call it God or not is a different question.
That reminds me of a conversation that Ravi Zacharias had with some scientists, true story. They were having a discussion on the causation of the universe, and the naturalists were disregarding the argument of a non-natural cause. So Ravi said, "Alright, let me ask you: What is the Big Bang?" They said, "It's where everything in the universe was reduced to a sigularity." (cont.)
Ravi said, "And? Don't you also posit that it's where the laws of physics broke down?" They said, "That's true." Ravi said, "So even YOUR starting point is not natural." Do you know what they said to him? They said, "We scientists retain a SELECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY over whatever theories we wish to consider as plausible."
If by physical, we mean tangible, natural, or pertaining to scientific principles, then infinite regress becomes a problem if the cause of time/space/matter was physical too.
I'm starting to fear we'll have to go into quantum physics to continue this. Long story short, you need to rid yourself of some pretty basic assumptions on causality. Yup, that's right. Rid yourself of the notion of causality. The Universe is fundamentally probabilistic, but it's still testable in probabilistic terms. The critera for science is that it's testable and does therefore not allow supernatural phenomena under any circumstances, it's not selective except that it limits itself (cont)
(cont) to testable phenomena. When we test quantum physics for example, we test it in terms of probabilities, not absolute terms. So science it's not selective in the sense that it picks and chooses, it's selective in the sense that it does not and cannot cover things beyond testable phenomena... which incidentally is what I call reality.
There may well have been something "before" (in different dimsnsions then) the Big Bang, but it's fundamentally and irrevocably untestable. (cont)
(cont) Guesswork is not enough for me. You can IMAGINE anything you want caused the Big Bang, but then we're just exposing our completely and fundamentally meaningful guesses. No matter how you look at it, there is no logical path to the existence of God through science, the Big Bang or in fact anything.
But then again... when you talk about God, define your terms. ;)
The thought of dying scares me beyond comprehension. Therefore, I have to fight to stay alive for eternity. Even living for a few billion years doesn't seem long enough, because I know that, eventually, I will die. I'm just 17 years of age and I know you guys on this page will think I'm an idiot, or words to that effect, because I desire to be immortal. I believe anything is possible, and I'm not saying that just because I WANT to believe it but because miracles have happened.
Your third objection is just a play on words. It is completely irrelevant.
The universe was not created. Period. Show me proof to the contrary, and then we will talk. You haven't disproven a single thing I posted.
You have nothing to offer to prove that God was eternal. You are merely relying so cliched definition of God.
Your arguments are nonexistent. You haven't given any evidence to support your claim that there was a first cause. All you have relied on is semantics.
"Your third objection is just a play on words." - Really? How so?
"Show me proof to the contrary, and then we will talk." - You're shifting the burden of proof. I already gave reasons as to why the universe cannot be eternal, yet you still continue to argue that I'm wrong, which is rather silly.
"You have nothing to offer to prove that God was eternal." - That is NOT the subject of the video. The video subject is whether or not the universe is eternal. Please watch my policies video.
Wait, what? Science does not deal with the supernatural. Science is there to provide natural explanations through natural means. There is no evidence of anything supernatural ever occurring, so your first point is pointless.
Thinking, "Something supernatural might have happened" is non-answer.
There is nothing to suggest the existence of the supernatural, so your argument that it has been unfairly excluded is meaningless.
Are you really serious? What kind of weak objection is that? Do you honestly believe that something that has never been proven to exist should be given the same creedence as that which does exist?
"Science does not deal with the supernatural." - Correct, which means that science cannot accept NOR reject the supernatural hypothesis. This is the definition of science. Again when you use scientific laws to prove themselves to be correct, you're arguing in a circle. That's what I am saying.
And then it becomes a nothing hypothesis. If the supernatural cannot be empirically investigated, there is no reason one should believe that it exists. Science doesn't have to do anything about the supernatural; there isn't any evidence for it, so there is no point in believing that it is a valid hypothesis.
"If the supernatural cannot be empirically investigated, there is no reason one should believe that it exists." - Let me ask you: in what way can you empirically test that to be true?
There is no way that the supernatural can be tested, which is why it should not be taken into account. If there is no evidence for its existence, then it should not be given any credibility.
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I included the argument in my comments. My apologies. xD
David Hume's argument is that whatever cannot be empirically tested must be disregarded as sophistry and illusion. Do you agree with that argument, and if so, how can you empirically test it to be true?
"Isn't the argument based on disregarding that which can't be empirically tested?" - Ah, congratulations. You've just proven my point. If David Hume's argument is true, then logically ONLY things that can be empirically tested can be considered as true. The problem is that Hume's argument INCLUDES ITSELF IN IT'S OWN CRITERIA. The argument CANNOT be empirically tested because it is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement, not a scientific one. (cont.)
"Aquinas' argument begs the question itself." - Well first your assumption is that the current model for the cosmological argument is the same model as Aquinas' model. This is incorrect. Secondly, there are 5 things that are not scientifically testable but are perfectly rational to accept. 1) Logic and mathematics, 2) Moral claims, 3) Metaphysical claims like "there are other minds that exist, other than my own," 4) Arguments of Meaning and Purpose, and most interestingly, 5) Science itself.
"And notice belief in the supernatural is nowhere to be found on that list." - You're missing the point. If all of those thinga are perfectly reasonable to accept WITHOUT scientific testability, why is the supernatural so UNREASONABLE?
Therefore Hume's argument is sophistry and illusion. In other words, Hume's argument is self-defeating.
So Samurai, my point is that you're arguing in a circle, by saying that "the supernatural must be disregarded because it cannot be empirically tested." You're presupposing a naturalistic framework to prove that only naturalism is worth considering.
How can you not understand a concept so simple? Your semantics are pathetic.
If it can be empirically tested, it should be given a credence. If it can't be tested, it should be disregarded.
What about that do you not understand? I'm not the one arguing in a circle. I don't have to presuppose anything, because the natural is all that exists. Material things are all that have been observed. There is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Period.
Your word play won't change the fact that one should not believe in anything that has never before been seen, touched, smelled or heard. Why should the supernatural be given even ground? Why?
Samurai, you know it's not word play. A self-defeating argument is when a statement includes ITSELF in its own criteria, and contradicts itself by that criteria which shows that the statement cannot be true. It's the same as saying "EVERYTHING I say is a lie." If EVERYTHING I say is a lie, that statement itself must also be lie. The problem is that I'm assuming that statement to be true, which contradicts that statement. There's no word here. (cont.)
When you say that "WHATEVER cannot be empirically tested should be considered", you include that statement in its own criteria. Now you must use the same criteria to see if that statement itself is correct. That statement is NOT empirically testable, it is PHILOSOPHICAL. Therefore that statement should not be considered. So why should the supernatural be given even ground? You own argument shows why.
He doesn't mean everything at all. He is talking about claims made that cannot be tested.
Hume was talking about what SHOULD be done. He is not making a descriptive claim. I think you are confusing prescriptive arguments with descriptive ones.
"He is talking about claims made that cannot be tested." - Precisely. Is it empirically tested that "whatever cannot be empirically tested can be nothing but sophistry and illusion"? No, it is not. The statement is not empirical, but philosophical.
It has nothing to do with prescriptive or descriptive. If the argument includes itself in its own criteria and then refutes itself by that criteria, it is self-defeating regardless of what kind of "scriptive" statement it is.
"David Hume's argument is that whatever cannot be empirically tested MUST be disregarded as sophistry and illusion."
A prescriptive argument is an argument about the way things SHOULD be, not the way things are. There is no way to use empiricism to test a prescriptive argument.
Also, to state that the supernatural exists, is a descriptive claim. To test this claim, one must use empiricism.
Then at best Samurai, saying that the supernatural MUST be empirically testable is a PRESCRIPTIVE argument too. Remember, prescriptive arguments are about what SHOULD or OUGHT to happen, not what IS.
"The supernatural exists" = descriptive
"therefore one must use empiricism" = PRESCRIPTIVE.
Therefore you're committing a double standard by your OWN admission.
"Empiricism cannot be used to examine the supernatural" = Descriptive (and true)
Therefore...
"One should not give credence to the supernatural." = Prescriptive
David Hume was not talking about conclusions gained from logic. Hume meant that whatever cannot be empirically tested IN THE MATERIAL WORLD should be disregarded as sophistry and illusion.
Can the supernatural be empirically tested to exist? No, it cannot--which means that it should be disregarded.
Haha! Samurai, logic is system which applies to real life situations. Ex: you CANNOT be a human being and not a human being at the same time and in the same sense. Whenever a person makes a statement as a proposition, one is required to use logic to analyze the validity of that claim. That's one of the laws of logic.
Let me put it this way: what makes you conclude that your argument that "the supernatural SHOULD empirically testable if it is to be given even ground," is NOT a prescriptive argument?
What meaning would an answer or question have if the partys involved did not understand how each other communicates or more so how communication works itself?
What you're saying is that not perspective, but UNDERSTANDING. Truth by definition is exclusive, when you have two options that are mutually exclusive, both of them CANNOT be right. I think what you're really saying is that truth exists regardless of whether or not we perceive it. Then we subsequently gain knowledge or information of that truth then draw meaningful conclusions on what the truth tells us. That's completely different from saying that perspectives give truth its meaning.
Truth has meaning in and of itself and is independent of perspective. If we perceive truth to be different from what it is, then it is not the truth that is false, but our perception of it.
So ultimately, if it is your PERSPECTIVE that mass comes into existence out of nothing, then logically that really means nothing. Therefore you would have no reason to claim it or even believe it.
Unfortunately, I need to leave you with that, Magpie. I have not gone to bed all night and it's 5am where I am. However, I would love to engage in these conversations with you more, if you're interested.
I think you need to ultimately deal with your relativism before objecting to the origin of the universe. I suggest you watch this video as I think it helps clarify what I'm saying: watch?v=jq6qLiO9Xc8
I shall be praying for you, my friend. God Bless you! :)
Truth itself without any beings to experience it would be meaningless. The reason for this is simple. Only beings can give meaning to anything. Meaning comes from giving something a name that is not its own. A label gives you meaning. Your name your age ect ect... are all labels and they give you more meaning. How relevent that meaning is idk would you still be the same without a name or age yes you would. The difference is that once you have a name you can be defined apart from others.
"Truth itself without any beings to experience it would be meaningless." - That's a fallacy called arguing the consequent, which is a form of circular reasoning.
1. If A (truth has meaning) then B (we perceive it).
2. B (we perceive it).
3. Therefore A (truth has meaning).
I mean this out of love and respect for you Magpie, but what you're saying is not a valid argument against the premise that "the universe has a cause". It's self-defeating.
absolute truth to me would just be truth. It doesnt get absolute imo. Truth is truth and it will always exist but its nothing more then simply a pole everything rides for a good time.
We can misunderstand what another is trying to say so easly. We put faith in our ability to understand anothers perspective when all evidence points to the fact that we do not understand. How often have you been understood correctly fully? Let alone just after a chance encounter. We say that the other persons faith beliefs science is wrong without understanding that it is the same as ours experessed in a different way.
Well the reason to not reject something thats been proven false is in falsehood itself. Altho I would agree that one would end up rejecting what was proven false but wrongly so. The reason we hold onto things that are proven false in other peoples perspectives is that our understanding of the evidence is not the same. Your perspective on the evidence and how it comes together to form the proof is going to be different then others. I think the biggest thing we do wrong tho is misunderstand...
Magpie, what you're referring to is relativism. If relativism is true, then logically ANYTHING is possible, including things that are not possible in actuality. If you argue that that is clearly my perspective on what relativism is, then logically NONE of us are right, since that in itself would be your perspective as well. Therefore truth can NEVER be known even though some may believe that truth IS known. (cont.)
"The reason we hold onto things that are proven false in other peoples perspectives is that our understanding of the evidence is not the same." - That doesn't prove that evidence is therefore false. It sounds like you're saying that because people disagree with me, we should grant their position equal validity to make them feel like they are right. You're basically stating something that is a proposition, while at the same time, not granting that it is propositional.
I dont believe I said and didnt mean to say that we should try to make people feel like they are right when we disagree. But we should understand that we might not agree for other reasons beyound the fact that we seem to disagree. Sometimes someone can say a flower smells good and a person can hear a prowler smelt good. How far do you dig into your diferences with others? You may find if you get to know the person who you disagree with that you will find you dont really disagree after all.
"You may find if you get to know the person who you disagree with that you will find you dont really disagree after all." - But how could that possibly be? Picture this scenario: I believe in God, you do not. I believe in absolute truth, you do not How could we both be on the same ground of agreeance if we don't believe the same thing? Sure the reasons may be the same to support both our positions, but we still disagree on those ultimate subjects.
Yes perspective does not make the real truth. But what it does is defines it. Without perspective truth is meaningless. Truth can not be meaningless. Therefor the truth of the perspective is found within its meaning. Or in other words what we know can only be a part of us when we have an idea about what it is. If we lose our opinion of some knowledge it will no longer be with us. What we hold onto the most is what defines us.
"Yes perspective does not make the real truth." - Then the logical to ask would be this: If I have two mutually exclusive options in order to explain a case, but one of those options is shown to be false, why would one still want to hold perspective on that disproven option as if it were still possibly true, when in actuality, it is not. Why should that be when you just admitted that perspective does not make the real truth?
Magpie, while I appreciate your response, your argument is self-defeating. If perspective does not make the real truth, then logically, your objection to my video means absolutely nothing.
The problem with the question of are perspectives true or not is... When you ask if a perspective is true you either illimate the one having it or the information being percieved. To understand this better just think about what if you asked a complete stranger what flavor ice cream you like. Any answer they give is false because they do not understand why it is one you like. They can only have access to knowledge from own perspective and still be themselfs. So the perspective is true false.
Ah, but magpie, that kind of perspective you're referring to is a matter of personal preference, not propositional content. Personal preference, by definition, is an opinion that is neither true nor false, because it holds no type of proposition. The "real truth" you're referring to is a propositional truth is not dependent on perspective in order to hold meaning. Yet you're saying that perspective still needs to be there in order for truth to have meaning, which is self-contradictory.
If you know your going to fail at something your chances of not failing are very low. If you know you could do it right your chances of actualy doing it right go up. But this is all just perspective as is everything in life cept for what is real. What is real is unknown because to know the real is to understand in full. When a being understands in full they lose the part of them that is the being and become something else. This is probaby why most people believe in a god and afterlife I dont
"But this is all just perspective as is everything in life cept for what is real." - So you concede that a perspective does not make something true by necessity then?
Yes if we change our perspectives on anything it will change the possiblitys that we can have but only insomuch as we notice. The difference between living a good life and living a bad one is how much you notice your life sucking is an example of this. A person who is poor by western standards who never knew of the west may not care but upon finding out about modern technology and clean water ect... They may become more concerned with what they have.. It is the chance to win that is allowed.
The reason you can get inf events in the past and future happening is simple sorta. The past and future do not actualy exist the now is all that is. What the now knows is that it changes and because it knows it changes it can see into its past forever and also into its future forever. That vision is not very good because the now is always changing and any perspective it has to change with it leading to confusion or simply change. The past and future exist but dont count.
The problem is mass can come into existance from nothing. But our understand of what mass is has major flaws. Dont think of mass as something apart from the void but more as something thats a part of the void. That being a divide section of it. How this can happen is via perspective. When ever you get perspective of any kind in a vacumme it becomes a driving force for more perspectives.
I appreciate your response. However, I like you to clarify your objection. Are you saying that upon changing our perspectives of physical properties, if we decide to do so, it will bring about more possibilities for things to occur in actuality?
Im getting tired now but i like your arguments ...i just want to say that i dont have a closed mindover either finite or infinite(how could i there is no proof either way) options but at the moment i am at an infinite position .I think that the universe has a start and finish as we know it but that 'before' the start it was very different meaning that it is always changing.
zigor4 2 months ago
bass check out neil turok's article on the cyclical nature of the universe. edge d0t 0rg. see also, Hawkings and Hartle on the No Boundary Universe.
they say you are wrong!
floydstinkyboy 2 years ago 2
Hey Bass, please realize I'm not trying to upset you. If you can't explain how your "creation" concept scientifically applies to the reality of the universe, then it's ok. Please don't worry about it. This is only a scientific discussion. The last thing I wanna do is make people upset.
You know, people don't have an answer for everything. This is why we have faith. All humans have faith. Peace!
fatfist 2 years ago
Bass, the issue here is not to prove the universe is not eternal. You are trying to prove a negative, and you have failed.
This issue is for you to PROVE the universe is CREATED - a positive! But first you must define and explain the word CREATE.
Especially how nothing (no space, no void, no god) can surreptitiously be converted to specific 3D objects having LxWxH.
Let's not lose track about what your video is about, bass. Stay focused on your claim, please.
fatfist 2 years ago
How did the U begin to exist (according to your definition above)? Until you explain this step, your argument is logically and scientifically invalid.
The conclusion is a Non-Sequitor since P1 and P2 have failed.
I wouldn't use Craig's arguments. I have proven them all invalid before.
fatfist 2 years ago
1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
Craig's argument above does not prove anything.
P1 does not define the word exist scientifically. Until you DEFINE the word 'exist' unambiguously at this point, you have nothing. Thus this argument is logically invalid and scientifically invalid.
P2 is a bald assertion and commits fallacy Begging the Question.
fatfist 2 years ago
Let's stay FOCUSED here Bass.
You are making some wild assertions. It is not my job to prove a negative. You need to PROVE your positive claims. The BURDEN OF PROOF is on you. As a scientist, you SHOULD know this!
I have asked you MANY times already: PLEASE SHOW 1 OF SOMETHING THAT IS CREATED.
Enough of the religious poetry please. Just explain your concept of CREATION in the context of REALITY, and not using heart-felt emotion - please!
fatfist 2 years ago
I have already showed how the eternality of the universe is logically impossible. You are trying to make it look like I didn't. No offense, but any more diversive and insulting comments like that, and I will delete your comments. Continue up with it afterwords, and I will block you from my channel.
I know you can do better than this. So please do not change subjects and insult me because I am religious.
BassP86 2 years ago
Oh Bass, how can u say I am insulting you. I didn't call u any bad names. If someone did, that would be childish. We are having an intellectual exchange here.
You are making a claim about creation, and I am asking u to scientifically explain it. Science uses theories to explain logically and rationally how some event happens. That is all you are expected to do about your concept of CREATION.
This is science after all.
fatfist 2 years ago
"You are trying to make it look like I didn't."
Hate to break it to you, but you didn't. Even William Lane Craig's video, which you recommended, admits that there's no logical problems with an infinite amount of time in the past.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Bass, the ancient Greeks knew the universe was eternal and evolving. They even knew at 600 BC that the species were evolving. This was not something new in 1970 like the church told you.
Nothing can be created. Abrahamic religions conjured up the word "create". All is assembled from pre-existing matter.
fatfist 2 years ago
"Bass, the ancient Greeks knew the universe was eternal" - Pardon the crassness of it, but if you allowed me to use the same logic, it would be safe to say that because the Greeks "knew" there existed a higher entity, it therefore must make it true.
"Nothing can be created." - Come on bro. That's not science, that's metaphysics. You're still presupposing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct, and cannot be disproven which is a contradiction to the scientific method.
BassP86 2 years ago
Huh? What logic are u assuming I'm using, bass?
Your church conjured up the word "create". There is not a single example of anything created. It is not even metaphysics, it is religious magic.
And who said anything about thermodynamics? You did.
Give 1 example of something that is created. Then we can talk about "creation".
fatfist 2 years ago
"What logic are u assuming I'm using, bass?" - You are saying that the Greeks KNEW that the universe was eternal, and therefore it must make the eternality of the universe true. Not only is this an overgeneralization of what the ancient Greeks actually believed, but it is also a form of the bare assertion fallacy. By claiming to know something to be true, it therefore must make the argument true. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
You are adding your own words Bass. Go read what I said. It's officially on the record. The stuff your church is feeding from 1970 forgot to take into account what the ancient civilizations said about the universe.
fatfist 2 years ago
"It is not even metaphysics, it is religious magic." - I believe you're misunderstanding me. I'm saying that your statement that "Nothing can be created" is not a scientific statement, but a philosophical one.
"And who said anything about thermodynamics?" - The statement "Nothing can be created" is a metaphysical argument taken from the 2nd law which states that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but rather convert into one another. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
Oh Bass, if you are going to talk about science, then why are you invoking religious terms like "thermodynamics", "mass", "energy", etc.
fatfist 2 years ago
Haha, what? Mass and energy are religious terms? No offense, but if I you go and say that to ANY scientist and they will not take you seriously.
Fatfist, let's not change the subject with made-up statements.
BassP86 2 years ago
(Mass and energy are religious terms?)
You are introducing abstract terms into the discussion in order to change the topic. In magic we call this tactic MISDIRECTION. You need to be able to explain terms to a barmaid or a child, otherwise you don't know what they mean.
Draw us a picture of "mass" or "energy" since you use the concept of "create" (a verb) with them, hence treating them as objects (nouns).
You are talking RELIGION here Bass - not Science!
fatfist 2 years ago
"You are introducing abstract terms into the discussion in order to change the topic." - Matter is anything that takes up physical space. Mass is the density of that matter, similar to the weight of something. That's science not abstraction.
BassP86 2 years ago
"There is not a single example of anything created" - Not only does your argument presuppose that the 2nd law is true in all cases, you also rely on stating that "there are no examples of created things" to make your argument true, which is the negative proof fallacy. In other words, you're relying on the unsupported negation of a first cause in order to make it false. That would be like me simply assuming that creation is true to make my argument correct, which is not the case in my video.
BassP86 2 years ago
Bass, you are arguing with yourself here. When you are done arguing with yourself and using religious terms, then please show 1, just ONE of something that is CREATED.
fatfist 2 years ago
"Your church conjured up the word "create"." - Finally, the origin of an idea does not prove it to be false. That's the genetic fallacy.
Even if it WERE correct that the Christian Church was the first to postulate the idea of creation, it doesn't do anything to disprove the idea itself.
Keep in mind that I am not saying that because a finite universe cannot be disproven, it therefore makes it true, That's an appeal to ignorance. I'm simply applying logic to the "eternal universe" arguments.
BassP86 2 years ago
Bass, again you are putting words in my mouth so you can argue with a puppet.
Just cut the crap and let's talk about your concept of CREATION. Please show 1 thing that is created so we know that your concept of creation can be edified into reality.
Otherwise your "creation" concept is just conjured up nonsense you are trying to pass off as "snake oil". It's just another magical god idea - conceptual garbage invented by humans. Let's get real.
fatfist 2 years ago
"Bass, again you are putting words in my mouth" - How so? Show me where I'm putting words in your mouth.
1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
I used logic to show how the universe CANNOT be eternal, showing how the universe is finite. Therefore, logically speaking, the universe is finite and was created by a cause. You have to give counterarguments to the video, not the shift the burden of proof.
BassP86 2 years ago
Before you use Pastor William Craig's arguments, you should know that they commit the fallacy of Begging the Question, non-sequitor, circular, among others.
You like using the word "Science", but show none!
Show us scientifically how nothing (no space, no void, no god, etc.) is surreptitiously turned into something, like a rock, or a planet, or a star, etc. This is what your CREATION is about.
Why do you refuse to answer?
fatfist 2 years ago
If I keep discussing this with you, my face will explode.
Summary: No proof that time cannot be infinite was presented, so an eternal universe remains a possibility.
The end.
x1101011x 2 years ago
I'm still waiting to see your logical steps clearly presented and leading to a contradiction, so I'm forced to conclude that the concept of infinity inherently "violates the laws of logic."
x1101011x 2 years ago
If your disregard the domino analogy, I also said in the video to look up Dr. William Lane Craig's hotel analogy. It states the further absurdity in the argument for an eternal universe.
I find it suspicious that you continue to tell me I'm wrong, when you keep giving counterarguments that don't answer anything. "Mathematics is just one of those things that is certainly true." No offense intended, but you're gonna have to do better than this.
BassP86 2 years ago
Seriously?
I said that "Mathematics is just those things which are certainly true" because that's what Mathematics is by definition. It is the study of axiomatic systems, which are the only conditions under which absolute truth can be asserted.
It's not a counterargument. All I can do against your argument is point out that you have constructed a faulty argument, which you have.
Your argument is wrong until you can prove your point. Until then, eternal time remains a possibility.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"look up Dr. William Lane Craig's hotel analogy"
I assume you're referring to Hilbert's hotel paradox. It is called a paradox only because it leads to counterintuitive results. There is no logical contradiction in the thought experiment.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"It is the study of axiomatic systems, which are the only conditions under which absolute truth can be asserted." - I agree that is what mathematics is, however mathematics is not what is certainly true. It is the axioms THEMSELVES that are true. Mathematics is the method in which we MEASURE the axioms, so the likelihood that our theories fit the axioms is far less likely. To say that the METHOD is true, is where the fallacy of begging of question comes in.
BassP86 2 years ago
"the axioms THEMSELVES ... are true"
Absolutely incorrect. Axioms are just assumptions. If I start off by assuming that you're a fish, it doesn't make it absolutely true that you're a fish.
What *is* absolutely true is that you're a fish if you're a fish.
That is, it is absolutely true that, if just these axioms hold, the theorems derived from them are correct.
Begging the question is assuming your conclusion. This is not begging the question.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Then how is mathematics true?
First you say that mathematics "is the study of axiomatic systems, which are the only conditions under which absolute truth can be asserted." Then you say that "axioms are just assumptions". If they are just assumptions, wouldn't that make mathematics, just a bunch of assumptions too?
BassP86 2 years ago
Mathematics is the theorems derived from those assumptions. You know that those theorems are absolutely 100% true when the assumptions hold.
Nothing else is absolutely 100% true.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"You know that those theorems are absolutely 100% true when the assumptions hold." - That assumes that THEOREMS make the assumptions absolute, which assumes that the THEOREMS are absolutes but the assumptions are NOT. Absolute truth is truth that exists independently of other things; truth that is what is regardless of anything else. The truth you're defining is not absolute, but CONTINGENT.
BassP86 2 years ago
No.
This has nothing to do with Modal Logic.
Consider the simple example...
Axioms: P is true. Q is false.
Theorem: Q implies P
Proof: Definition of implication.
Therefore, it is always true that Q implies P when P is true and Q is false, so your absolute truth is:
P and (not Q) and (Q implies P)
Similarly, the axioms can be added to any theorem to generate an absolute truth.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Ugh, I made a mess of that. The absolute truth should be:
(P ^ ~Q) -> (Q->P)
Which is
~(P ^ ~Q) v (Q -> P)
The point is that an absolute truth can be generated.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Your argument against the possibility of eternal time assumes that time has a starting point, which it clearly doesn't if it's eternal.
Your domino analogy is flawed. Reaching X does NOT imply that it's not endless. Every domino before X (and endless number) would be knocked over.
There's no inherent contradiction with infinity.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"Your argument against the possibility of eternal time assumes that has a starting point" - Actually, that's a misunderstanding of the point that I was making. I was NOT holding the presupposition that time has a starting point. That was my CONCLUSION. When I said that I was going to give reasons as to why I don't believe in an eternal universe, the arguments I presented were the precise reasons as to why I rejected it. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
"that's a misunderstanding of the point that I was making"
No. You don't understand your point. Your *implicit* assumption is that time has a starting point. This assumption lies in your use of the word "reach." You say that we would never "reach" now.
Answer this: reach from where?
x1101011x 2 years ago
"reach from where?" - x1101011x, this is an appeal to ignorance. If the amount of time before the present is endless, how could the present exist? That's is a contradiction.
BassP86 2 years ago
"how could the present exist?"
Wait, which "endless" are you using. I'll assume you mean infinite.
There's absolutely no reason it couldn't exist. It's not a contradiction. There's no contradiction.
x1101011x 2 years ago
P.S. This is NOT an appeal to ignorance because I'm NOT asserting that the universe is eternal. My claim is ONLY that your argument that the universe cannot be eternal is wrong.
An appeal to ignorance is "There's no evidence against X. Therefore X must be true." My claim is "There's no evidence against X. Therefore X is not necessarily false."
x1101011x 2 years ago
"An appeal to ignorance is "There's no evidence against X. Therefore X must be true." - That's precisely what your argument is. By saying that mathematics is just one of those things that is certainly true in EVERY principle, you're arguing that it cannot be refuted therefore it is true. Not all principles all principles in mathematics are true and the concept of infinity is one of those concepts. It is true that 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
I did not say that time is eternal. I said that your reasoning for why time cannot be eternal is wrong.
This is not an appeal to ignorance.
x1101011x 2 years ago
However, to argue that a rock of a SPECIFIC size is made up of an infinite number of particles is self-contradictory in itself and in reality. Some mathematics is true in reality, but not all of it.
No offense, but I can tell by the evidence in your premises that you're copying and pasting from other websites and you are not applying the quotes to the logic of your own objection.
BassP86 2 years ago
How is it self-contradictory? Where's the contradiction?
No offense, but I can tell by your arguments that you're a fucking moron.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Aslo I was actually GRANTING the definitions for 'infinite' and 'eternal' and applying logic to those definitions by giving real life examples. Therefore the argument that "time has a starting point" is not my beginning assumption, it is my CONCLUSION. Common sense really.
"Every domino before X (an endless number) would be knocked over." - If the numbers of dominoes before X is endless, then logically if they were to reach X, then they would have an end. So actually, you're granting my point.
BassP86 2 years ago
"you're granting my point"
Ha. I'll grant ambiguity to the term "endless." When I said it, I meant "infinite" and not "without end." I meant "infinite" because you use the word "endless" when you really meant "infinite."
Infinite just means a proper subset has the "same number" of elements.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"Infinite just means a proper subset has the "same number" of elements." - Okay, so would yo care to elaborate on what you mean by this?
BassP86 2 years ago
"elaborate on what you mean"
I mean the definition of infinite. A set A is said to be infinite if there exists a bijection between A and a proper subset of A. That's what it means to be infinite.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Okay but what, at least to your understanding, is a bijection and a subset?
BassP86 2 years ago
"what ... is a bijection and a subset?"
These are common mathematical terms with precise definitions.
A bijection is a one-to-one, onto mapping. A set A is a subset of a set B if an element of A is also an element of B.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Whoops, there's a significant typo: A set A is a subset of a set B if ANY element of A is also an element of B.
x1101011x 2 years ago
Ah, so we're going into mathematics then. Ok fair enough. Are numbers and the concepts of zero and infinity abstract principles?
BassP86 2 years ago
Mathematics is just those things that are certainly true. We're not "going into Mathematics." Mathematics always applies.
Your argument is just plain wrong. The reason you give that there cannot be an infinite amount of time in the past does not apply. That's it.
x1101011x 2 years ago
"Mathematics is just those things that are certainly true." - In order to verify things that are certainly true, we cannot use terms such as just, because that begs the question. Sure mathematics is true, but only in terms of proposition at best. Mathematical concepts that bring forth propositions that are self-contradictory cannot be true. That's one of the laws of logic. By saying that that my argument is just plain wrong and does not apply, you're violating the laws of logic. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
Infinity is simply an idea, not a reality. In fact most mathematicians admit this because it violates the laws of logic. This you cannot deny, my friend.
BassP86 2 years ago
This topic has always been confusing for me.
Do you think matter and energy is capable of existing outside of time. If no, can you explain why?
Epydemic2020 2 years ago
I don't think they could exist outside of time. If they did, then I don't see how we would have particular events occur WITHIN time. Events would require the existence of other physical things in order to differentiate one event from another. Therefore if matter and space existed outside of time, then logically all events that occurred within time would be exactly the same. They would be no different from each other.
BassP86 2 years ago
I think it would be more accurate to say that time/space/matter all Began to exist IN ITS CURRENT FORM at the Big Bang. Before the Big Bang? Who knows?
And because we don't know the exact process of the Big Bang YET, that gives credibility to a supernatural cause? The "God of Gaps"? Is that all this discussion is about? How droll.
csaver 2 years ago
"I think it would be more accurate to say that time/space/matter all Began to exist IN ITS CURRENT FORM at the Big Bang." - But doesn't that already assume infinity?
BassP86 2 years ago
No. It just leaves open the possibility.
csaver 2 years ago
Infinity is a systematically contradictory concept. If it's contradictory, it cannot be true. If it cannot be true, then there doesn't exist any such possibility.
In order to make your point stand, you have to give valid arguments and evidence AGAINST the arguments I gave. Saying that there is still a possibility for infinity to occur in the universe is pure speculation.
Again it's NOT based on what we don't know about the universe but what we DO know. So can you refute that?
BassP86 2 years ago
Your argument is based around the fallacy that the Big Bang Theory states the universe had a finite beginning. Ultimately, it does not.
That's like saying the stuff YOU'RE made of didn't exist before you were born because it wasn't IN YOU yet.
csaver 2 years ago
Actually, scientists have NOT said the universe has an absolute beginning. Science has only tracked all that is (matter, energy, time, et al) up to a fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang. Any farther back in time the laws of the universe as we know them breaks down to a point where we don't understand yet (and I highly stress YET!!)
Thus the universe theoretically can be infinite. Only its form has changed.
csaver 2 years ago
So do you admit that the Big Bang, by definition is the point at which the laws of physics break down?
BassP86 2 years ago
Me? I'm some slob surfing YouTube. I got nothing to "admit" to. SCIENCE is still looking for the answers (just as science likes to do) and just hasn't gotten to the exact point of the Big Bang. I'm sure a lot of people with big, huge brains and big pocket protectors are working on the problem right now.
Simply put "We don't know" does NOT equal "Nothing."
csaver 2 years ago
1) That doesn't answer my question.
2) "Simply put "We don't know" does NOT equal "Nothing."" - This is a strawman. The arguments I've presented in this video are not based on what we don't know, but what we DO know. Infinity is logically self-contradictory by its own admission. An argument that is contradictory cannot be true. Scientists agree that by the evidence, that time/space/matter all BEGAN to exist at the Big Bang. Both of these facts do not allow credibility to an eternal universe.
BassP86 2 years ago
(cont.) Also if you admit that the Big Bang is the point at which the laws of physics break down, like scientists do, then the starting point you propose is ALSO not natural.
So you actually give more credibility to the supernatural hypothesis than you think.
BassP86 2 years ago
One thing to think about when it comes to inifinity and finity BOTH are just ideas in are minds. One we can understand and the other we cannot. Finity applies rules to everything and with these rules we can understand the universe to some degree. Logic goes by these basic rules that apply to everything we know. Infinity however breaks these rules and becomes illogical, are brains ARE NOT capable of understanding nor comprehending what infinity is therefore if it doesn't make sense to us(CONT)
mbmusic321 2 years ago
Comment removed
mbmusic321 2 years ago
or fall with in our reasoning or logic, it cannot exist. The only way we look at things are terms of finity, is because thats what are lives our. Every moment, experience, event, birth, death, etc. ALL have a begining and an end. How we understand things is based upon how we relate to it. This is where logic comes from. Basically it comes down to the fact that everything in life, including life itself, is finite therefore logically everything else has to be to for us to understand it. (CONT)
mbmusic321 2 years ago
GOD DAMN YOUTUBE!!!
Look. I'll just post a video response to you, okay? ;)
helgihg 2 years ago
Uhm... where are all these atheists that believe time is infinite back in the past? The Big Bang model has been extremely well established. Time and space are roughly 13.7 billion years old... I thought most atheists knew this. It's not even a matter of God or lack thereof, it's just the age of spacetime, similar to the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth in no way either establishes or rejects the notion of God, it has nothing to do with it.
helgihg 2 years ago
"where are all these atheists that believe time is infinite back in the past?" - I've met a ton of them through experience. It's very sad that some people just continue to reject the beginning of the universe simply as a way of explaining away even the possibility of God's existence. You're correct about the age of the earth neither establishing or rejecting God's existence. Just out of curiosity, do you think the finite nature of the universe as a whole allows a possibility for God to exist?
BassP86 2 years ago
This is usually where I ask people to define what they mean by God. If by God you simply mean the creator of the Universe, it's always possible and always will be possible entirely regardless of whether the Universe is infinite or not. There is and always will be a finite limit to what we can know about the origin of the Universe, at which point we can only guess. And sure, one might guess something they called God, whether the Universe is infinite or not.
helgihg 2 years ago
Speaking of God... God, I HATE the YouTube comment system. Why don't comments show up as responses to the comment one was responding to half of the time?
helgihg 2 years ago
I was thinking the same thing. Gets annoying after a while. That's why I usually send messages to people when my response is long. Oh well!
BassP86 2 years ago
Ok, so if the the universe is finite, that logically assumes that the physical has a cause. So would you conclude that the cause had to be nonphysical and uncaused, so as not to commit the fallacy of infinite regress?
BassP86 2 years ago
Well, call me crazy, but I'm neither sure of infinite regression being a fallacy, nor that a cause is required for the Universe. Also, we have to be extremely careful when using words like "non-physical" in this respect. If by physical you mean real, then I can't believe there was a non-physical cause to the Universe, but if by non-physical you mean, outside of our current understanding of physics, it's perfectly possible, even plausible. Whether we call it God or not is a different question.
helgihg 2 years ago
That reminds me of a conversation that Ravi Zacharias had with some scientists, true story. They were having a discussion on the causation of the universe, and the naturalists were disregarding the argument of a non-natural cause. So Ravi said, "Alright, let me ask you: What is the Big Bang?" They said, "It's where everything in the universe was reduced to a sigularity." (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
Ravi said, "And? Don't you also posit that it's where the laws of physics broke down?" They said, "That's true." Ravi said, "So even YOUR starting point is not natural." Do you know what they said to him? They said, "We scientists retain a SELECTIVE SOVEREIGNTY over whatever theories we wish to consider as plausible."
If by physical, we mean tangible, natural, or pertaining to scientific principles, then infinite regress becomes a problem if the cause of time/space/matter was physical too.
BassP86 2 years ago
I'm starting to fear we'll have to go into quantum physics to continue this. Long story short, you need to rid yourself of some pretty basic assumptions on causality. Yup, that's right. Rid yourself of the notion of causality. The Universe is fundamentally probabilistic, but it's still testable in probabilistic terms. The critera for science is that it's testable and does therefore not allow supernatural phenomena under any circumstances, it's not selective except that it limits itself (cont)
helgihg 2 years ago
(cont) to testable phenomena. When we test quantum physics for example, we test it in terms of probabilities, not absolute terms. So science it's not selective in the sense that it picks and chooses, it's selective in the sense that it does not and cannot cover things beyond testable phenomena... which incidentally is what I call reality.
There may well have been something "before" (in different dimsnsions then) the Big Bang, but it's fundamentally and irrevocably untestable. (cont)
helgihg 2 years ago
(cont) Guesswork is not enough for me. You can IMAGINE anything you want caused the Big Bang, but then we're just exposing our completely and fundamentally meaningful guesses. No matter how you look at it, there is no logical path to the existence of God through science, the Big Bang or in fact anything.
But then again... when you talk about God, define your terms. ;)
helgihg 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The thought of dying scares me beyond comprehension. Therefore, I have to fight to stay alive for eternity. Even living for a few billion years doesn't seem long enough, because I know that, eventually, I will die. I'm just 17 years of age and I know you guys on this page will think I'm an idiot, or words to that effect, because I desire to be immortal. I believe anything is possible, and I'm not saying that just because I WANT to believe it but because miracles have happened.
ColinJC1992 2 years ago
Your third objection is just a play on words. It is completely irrelevant.
The universe was not created. Period. Show me proof to the contrary, and then we will talk. You haven't disproven a single thing I posted.
You have nothing to offer to prove that God was eternal. You are merely relying so cliched definition of God.
Your arguments are nonexistent. You haven't given any evidence to support your claim that there was a first cause. All you have relied on is semantics.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"Your third objection is just a play on words." - Really? How so?
"Show me proof to the contrary, and then we will talk." - You're shifting the burden of proof. I already gave reasons as to why the universe cannot be eternal, yet you still continue to argue that I'm wrong, which is rather silly.
"You have nothing to offer to prove that God was eternal." - That is NOT the subject of the video. The video subject is whether or not the universe is eternal. Please watch my policies video.
BassP86 2 years ago
Wait, what? Science does not deal with the supernatural. Science is there to provide natural explanations through natural means. There is no evidence of anything supernatural ever occurring, so your first point is pointless.
Thinking, "Something supernatural might have happened" is non-answer.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
There is nothing to suggest the existence of the supernatural, so your argument that it has been unfairly excluded is meaningless.
Are you really serious? What kind of weak objection is that? Do you honestly believe that something that has never been proven to exist should be given the same creedence as that which does exist?
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"Science does not deal with the supernatural." - Correct, which means that science cannot accept NOR reject the supernatural hypothesis. This is the definition of science. Again when you use scientific laws to prove themselves to be correct, you're arguing in a circle. That's what I am saying.
BassP86 2 years ago
And then it becomes a nothing hypothesis. If the supernatural cannot be empirically investigated, there is no reason one should believe that it exists. Science doesn't have to do anything about the supernatural; there isn't any evidence for it, so there is no point in believing that it is a valid hypothesis.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Sorry for not commenting back.
"If the supernatural cannot be empirically investigated, there is no reason one should believe that it exists." - Let me ask you: in what way can you empirically test that to be true?
BassP86 2 years ago
There is no way that the supernatural can be tested, which is why it should not be taken into account. If there is no evidence for its existence, then it should not be given any credibility.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
That's not what I'm asking, Samurai.
I'm asking that if you agree if David Hume's argument and if so, do you have ANY way of empirically testing and verifying that argument?
BassP86 2 years ago
In what way can I empirically test what to be true?
TehSamurai 2 years ago
In what way can you empirically test David Hume's argument to be true, if you agree with it?
BassP86 2 years ago
What is the argument?
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Yes, it is. Do you agree with that argument and is so, in what way can you empirically test his argument to be true?
BassP86 2 years ago
Yes, what is? What are you talking about? Tell me what David Hume's argument is.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I included the argument in my comments. My apologies. xD
David Hume's argument is that whatever cannot be empirically tested must be disregarded as sophistry and illusion. Do you agree with that argument, and if so, how can you empirically test it to be true?
BassP86 2 years ago
How can I empirically test it to be true? Isn't the argument based on disregarding that which can't be empirically tested?
Also, why do I have to test anything? If a claim can't be empirically tested, then I don't need to do anything. I don't have the burden of proof.
If you want the supernatural to be given credence, you provide the evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"Isn't the argument based on disregarding that which can't be empirically tested?" - Ah, congratulations. You've just proven my point. If David Hume's argument is true, then logically ONLY things that can be empirically tested can be considered as true. The problem is that Hume's argument INCLUDES ITSELF IN IT'S OWN CRITERIA. The argument CANNOT be empirically tested because it is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement, not a scientific one. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
You can't be serious. I'll ask you again:
Why should the supernatural be considered as a viable alternative?
I can't believe you are trying to accuse me of begging the question, when Aquinas' argument begs the question itself.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"Aquinas' argument begs the question itself." - Well first your assumption is that the current model for the cosmological argument is the same model as Aquinas' model. This is incorrect. Secondly, there are 5 things that are not scientifically testable but are perfectly rational to accept. 1) Logic and mathematics, 2) Moral claims, 3) Metaphysical claims like "there are other minds that exist, other than my own," 4) Arguments of Meaning and Purpose, and most interestingly, 5) Science itself.
BassP86 2 years ago
And notice belief in the supernatural is nowhere to be found on that list. It has nothing to do with logic and reasoning at all.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"And notice belief in the supernatural is nowhere to be found on that list." - You're missing the point. If all of those thinga are perfectly reasonable to accept WITHOUT scientific testability, why is the supernatural so UNREASONABLE?
You're committing a double standard.
BassP86 2 years ago
I'm not committing a double standard at all. The supernatural defies logic and reasoning. Therefore, it should not be taken into consideration.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Therefore Hume's argument is sophistry and illusion. In other words, Hume's argument is self-defeating.
So Samurai, my point is that you're arguing in a circle, by saying that "the supernatural must be disregarded because it cannot be empirically tested." You're presupposing a naturalistic framework to prove that only naturalism is worth considering.
BassP86 2 years ago
How can you not understand a concept so simple? Your semantics are pathetic.
If it can be empirically tested, it should be given a credence. If it can't be tested, it should be disregarded.
What about that do you not understand? I'm not the one arguing in a circle. I don't have to presuppose anything, because the natural is all that exists. Material things are all that have been observed. There is no evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Period.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"How can you not understand a concept so simple?" - Samaurai, I don't mean to be rude, but do you know what a self-defeating argument is?
BassP86 2 years ago
Your word play won't change the fact that one should not believe in anything that has never before been seen, touched, smelled or heard. Why should the supernatural be given even ground? Why?
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Samurai, you know it's not word play. A self-defeating argument is when a statement includes ITSELF in its own criteria, and contradicts itself by that criteria which shows that the statement cannot be true. It's the same as saying "EVERYTHING I say is a lie." If EVERYTHING I say is a lie, that statement itself must also be lie. The problem is that I'm assuming that statement to be true, which contradicts that statement. There's no word here. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
When you say that "WHATEVER cannot be empirically tested should be considered", you include that statement in its own criteria. Now you must use the same criteria to see if that statement itself is correct. That statement is NOT empirically testable, it is PHILOSOPHICAL. Therefore that statement should not be considered. So why should the supernatural be given even ground? You own argument shows why.
BassP86 2 years ago
He doesn't mean everything at all. He is talking about claims made that cannot be tested.
Hume was talking about what SHOULD be done. He is not making a descriptive claim. I think you are confusing prescriptive arguments with descriptive ones.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
"He is talking about claims made that cannot be tested." - Precisely. Is it empirically tested that "whatever cannot be empirically tested can be nothing but sophistry and illusion"? No, it is not. The statement is not empirical, but philosophical.
It has nothing to do with prescriptive or descriptive. If the argument includes itself in its own criteria and then refutes itself by that criteria, it is self-defeating regardless of what kind of "scriptive" statement it is.
BassP86 2 years ago
"David Hume's argument is that whatever cannot be empirically tested MUST be disregarded as sophistry and illusion."
A prescriptive argument is an argument about the way things SHOULD be, not the way things are. There is no way to use empiricism to test a prescriptive argument.
Also, to state that the supernatural exists, is a descriptive claim. To test this claim, one must use empiricism.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Then at best Samurai, saying that the supernatural MUST be empirically testable is a PRESCRIPTIVE argument too. Remember, prescriptive arguments are about what SHOULD or OUGHT to happen, not what IS.
"The supernatural exists" = descriptive
"therefore one must use empiricism" = PRESCRIPTIVE.
Therefore you're committing a double standard by your OWN admission.
BassP86 2 years ago
No, you are wrong.
"Empiricism cannot be used to examine the supernatural" = Descriptive (and true)
Therefore...
"One should not give credence to the supernatural." = Prescriptive
David Hume was not talking about conclusions gained from logic. Hume meant that whatever cannot be empirically tested IN THE MATERIAL WORLD should be disregarded as sophistry and illusion.
Can the supernatural be empirically tested to exist? No, it cannot--which means that it should be disregarded.
TehSamurai 2 years ago
Haha! Samurai, logic is system which applies to real life situations. Ex: you CANNOT be a human being and not a human being at the same time and in the same sense. Whenever a person makes a statement as a proposition, one is required to use logic to analyze the validity of that claim. That's one of the laws of logic.
BassP86 2 years ago
Let me put it this way: what makes you conclude that your argument that "the supernatural SHOULD empirically testable if it is to be given even ground," is NOT a prescriptive argument?
BassP86 2 years ago
Mind rewording that?
TehSamurai 2 years ago
What meaning would an answer or question have if the partys involved did not understand how each other communicates or more so how communication works itself?
magpiesmn 2 years ago
What you're saying is that not perspective, but UNDERSTANDING. Truth by definition is exclusive, when you have two options that are mutually exclusive, both of them CANNOT be right. I think what you're really saying is that truth exists regardless of whether or not we perceive it. Then we subsequently gain knowledge or information of that truth then draw meaningful conclusions on what the truth tells us. That's completely different from saying that perspectives give truth its meaning.
BassP86 2 years ago
Truth has meaning in and of itself and is independent of perspective. If we perceive truth to be different from what it is, then it is not the truth that is false, but our perception of it.
BassP86 2 years ago
So ultimately, if it is your PERSPECTIVE that mass comes into existence out of nothing, then logically that really means nothing. Therefore you would have no reason to claim it or even believe it.
BassP86 2 years ago
Unfortunately, I need to leave you with that, Magpie. I have not gone to bed all night and it's 5am where I am. However, I would love to engage in these conversations with you more, if you're interested.
I think you need to ultimately deal with your relativism before objecting to the origin of the universe. I suggest you watch this video as I think it helps clarify what I'm saying: watch?v=jq6qLiO9Xc8
I shall be praying for you, my friend. God Bless you! :)
BassP86 2 years ago
Truth itself without any beings to experience it would be meaningless. The reason for this is simple. Only beings can give meaning to anything. Meaning comes from giving something a name that is not its own. A label gives you meaning. Your name your age ect ect... are all labels and they give you more meaning. How relevent that meaning is idk would you still be the same without a name or age yes you would. The difference is that once you have a name you can be defined apart from others.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
"Truth itself without any beings to experience it would be meaningless." - That's a fallacy called arguing the consequent, which is a form of circular reasoning.
1. If A (truth has meaning) then B (we perceive it).
2. B (we perceive it).
3. Therefore A (truth has meaning).
I mean this out of love and respect for you Magpie, but what you're saying is not a valid argument against the premise that "the universe has a cause". It's self-defeating.
BassP86 2 years ago
But... I never said the If A then B part. I just said B Therefore A. Or at least thats what I ment.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
Ok then. Let me ask this: do you believe in absolute truth?
BassP86 2 years ago
absolute truth to me would just be truth. It doesnt get absolute imo. Truth is truth and it will always exist but its nothing more then simply a pole everything rides for a good time.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
Ok, then let me rephrase it. Do you believe that truth, by definition, is exclusive?
BassP86 2 years ago
We can misunderstand what another is trying to say so easly. We put faith in our ability to understand anothers perspective when all evidence points to the fact that we do not understand. How often have you been understood correctly fully? Let alone just after a chance encounter. We say that the other persons faith beliefs science is wrong without understanding that it is the same as ours experessed in a different way.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
Well the reason to not reject something thats been proven false is in falsehood itself. Altho I would agree that one would end up rejecting what was proven false but wrongly so. The reason we hold onto things that are proven false in other peoples perspectives is that our understanding of the evidence is not the same. Your perspective on the evidence and how it comes together to form the proof is going to be different then others. I think the biggest thing we do wrong tho is misunderstand...
magpiesmn 2 years ago
Magpie, what you're referring to is relativism. If relativism is true, then logically ANYTHING is possible, including things that are not possible in actuality. If you argue that that is clearly my perspective on what relativism is, then logically NONE of us are right, since that in itself would be your perspective as well. Therefore truth can NEVER be known even though some may believe that truth IS known. (cont.)
BassP86 2 years ago
If anything is possible then just because anything is possible does not mean that anything is everything possible.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
"The reason we hold onto things that are proven false in other peoples perspectives is that our understanding of the evidence is not the same." - That doesn't prove that evidence is therefore false. It sounds like you're saying that because people disagree with me, we should grant their position equal validity to make them feel like they are right. You're basically stating something that is a proposition, while at the same time, not granting that it is propositional.
BassP86 2 years ago
I dont believe I said and didnt mean to say that we should try to make people feel like they are right when we disagree. But we should understand that we might not agree for other reasons beyound the fact that we seem to disagree. Sometimes someone can say a flower smells good and a person can hear a prowler smelt good. How far do you dig into your diferences with others? You may find if you get to know the person who you disagree with that you will find you dont really disagree after all.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
"You may find if you get to know the person who you disagree with that you will find you dont really disagree after all." - But how could that possibly be? Picture this scenario: I believe in God, you do not. I believe in absolute truth, you do not How could we both be on the same ground of agreeance if we don't believe the same thing? Sure the reasons may be the same to support both our positions, but we still disagree on those ultimate subjects.
BassP86 2 years ago
Yes perspective does not make the real truth. But what it does is defines it. Without perspective truth is meaningless. Truth can not be meaningless. Therefor the truth of the perspective is found within its meaning. Or in other words what we know can only be a part of us when we have an idea about what it is. If we lose our opinion of some knowledge it will no longer be with us. What we hold onto the most is what defines us.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
"Yes perspective does not make the real truth." - Then the logical to ask would be this: If I have two mutually exclusive options in order to explain a case, but one of those options is shown to be false, why would one still want to hold perspective on that disproven option as if it were still possibly true, when in actuality, it is not. Why should that be when you just admitted that perspective does not make the real truth?
BassP86 2 years ago
Magpie, while I appreciate your response, your argument is self-defeating. If perspective does not make the real truth, then logically, your objection to my video means absolutely nothing.
BassP86 2 years ago
The problem with the question of are perspectives true or not is... When you ask if a perspective is true you either illimate the one having it or the information being percieved. To understand this better just think about what if you asked a complete stranger what flavor ice cream you like. Any answer they give is false because they do not understand why it is one you like. They can only have access to knowledge from own perspective and still be themselfs. So the perspective is true false.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
Ah, but magpie, that kind of perspective you're referring to is a matter of personal preference, not propositional content. Personal preference, by definition, is an opinion that is neither true nor false, because it holds no type of proposition. The "real truth" you're referring to is a propositional truth is not dependent on perspective in order to hold meaning. Yet you're saying that perspective still needs to be there in order for truth to have meaning, which is self-contradictory.
BassP86 2 years ago
If you know your going to fail at something your chances of not failing are very low. If you know you could do it right your chances of actualy doing it right go up. But this is all just perspective as is everything in life cept for what is real. What is real is unknown because to know the real is to understand in full. When a being understands in full they lose the part of them that is the being and become something else. This is probaby why most people believe in a god and afterlife I dont
magpiesmn 2 years ago
"But this is all just perspective as is everything in life cept for what is real." - So you concede that a perspective does not make something true by necessity then?
BassP86 2 years ago
Yes if we change our perspectives on anything it will change the possiblitys that we can have but only insomuch as we notice. The difference between living a good life and living a bad one is how much you notice your life sucking is an example of this. A person who is poor by western standards who never knew of the west may not care but upon finding out about modern technology and clean water ect... They may become more concerned with what they have.. It is the chance to win that is allowed.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
Are perspectives necessarily true or are they simply opinions, which by definition hold no propositional content?
BassP86 2 years ago
The reason you can get inf events in the past and future happening is simple sorta. The past and future do not actualy exist the now is all that is. What the now knows is that it changes and because it knows it changes it can see into its past forever and also into its future forever. That vision is not very good because the now is always changing and any perspective it has to change with it leading to confusion or simply change. The past and future exist but dont count.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
The problem is mass can come into existance from nothing. But our understand of what mass is has major flaws. Dont think of mass as something apart from the void but more as something thats a part of the void. That being a divide section of it. How this can happen is via perspective. When ever you get perspective of any kind in a vacumme it becomes a driving force for more perspectives.
magpiesmn 2 years ago
I appreciate your response. However, I like you to clarify your objection. Are you saying that upon changing our perspectives of physical properties, if we decide to do so, it will bring about more possibilities for things to occur in actuality?
BassP86 2 years ago