The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
I like that at 00:30 he makes fun of some atheist quote that begins with "philosophically" when he himself only has a PhD in philosophy of science. What a joke this guy is.
This the Discovery Institutes ultimate goal. By pass the Established scientific method of peer review and scientific consensus completely and plug their god of the gaps bullshit directly to kids.
Kepler, Galileo and Boyle didn't have Radio, IR, UV, X-ray or Gamma ray telescopes, spectroscopes, cyclotrons, particle accelerators, super computers or even calculators.
"New Atheism is the Old Atheism repackaged?"
Just like "Enteligunt Dezine" is old Creationism repackaged?
@BeatleEDs Our universe was created when 2 membranes, the 11-dimensional energy barriers separating 2 of several previously existing universes, collided, bubbled out and injected their energy and mass into our new universe. Look up M-Theory.
@CrocodilusPontifex - Well, I don't need to look it, I am very familiar. And it's 10 dimensions + time. I subscribe to string theory (and M) but we have no evidence.
With all that said, I don't get your argument. String theory supports creation and a cause for our universe.,
That interpretation called (The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Model) fails because it predicts the brain on which we live have a positive tension but in the Ekpyrotic scenario it has a negative tension, 2ndly it needs an extrodanary amount of fine tunning 3rdly the collapsing & retreating brains are the equivelent of a 4 dimension universe which undergoes an eternal cycle contractions & expansions , but we know theres no way for a universe to pass threw a singularity.
"TrueU: If there's a beginning, must there be a cause for that beginning? "
Perhaps. This sounds logical. However, none of the religious texts can provide any insight. The Bible claims God created Adam and Eve and they messed up by eating an apple which condemned the rest of humanity for eternity, but we all know that's not true. It's really quite stupid. If God wanted us to behave a certain way, God should have been wiser when outlining these behaviors. Alas, it was just human writings . . .
Science has progressed a long way from the days of Galileo & Newton. There still is no scientific proof of a creator. The more we learn about nature, the less there is need to invoke supernatural causes for life in this universe.
The Discovery Institute agenda is to push for the existence of a Judeo-Christian interpretation of life. Real science does not start with a conclusion, then look for corroborating evidence, it tests hypotheses & draws conclusions based on the empirical evidence.
thesciencefoundation doesnt like when people disobey his atheistic rules so he stalks channels like this to argue pointlessly to no avail science should explore every avenue and find truth
@DeJay17Revolution Of course it should explore every avenue, and theists should have the intellectual dignity to admit none of it supports their claims.
@DeJay17Revolution Funny & ironic that so many youtube atheists feel the insecure need to nickname thenselves "Rational this or Science that", yet they mostly resort to mockery, shouting down and the genetic fallacy. They only accept what they want to hear. Science has nothing to do with it.
@M3PanoS It won't, entropy applies to the energy contained within an isolated system, not the system itself. The system can still be subject to cyclicity IE quantum loop gravity.
@TheScienceFoundation I don't know anything about quantum loop gravity so I won't pretend to, but I still think I can offer up some valid questions:
Is the universe, taken as an aggregate of all the things within it, not an isolated system? What do you mean by the system itself? And why would the universe be subject to cyclicity? If you're trying to make a case for a fluctuating universe (not sure), then how did the process begin?
@M3PanoS The universe, as in the totality of all existence, is the only isolated system. By the system itself I mean the universe in its entirety not just the energy within it. It would be subject to cyclicity because there is no upper limit of the mass of a gravity well, only time.
'then how did the process begin? '
That's an erroneous question, sort of like asking what's north of the north pole.
@TheScienceFoundation I'm sorry, but asking how the cycle began is not an erroneous question since you set up an erroneous analogy -one that you've probably heard Hawking say no doubt. Since your analogy doesn't follow from my question, you saying the analogy doesn't work has no bearing on what I asked. So, I'll ask again: How did the process start?
The universe might not be subject to cyclicity. It may be that it existed for what amounts to an infinite amount of time as a singularity. (It wouldn't suffer from heat death, or even heat loss, because there's no external environment for that heat to escape into.)
We're not really making a case for anything. We're just making a point; you can't simply assume that everything has a beginning. Aristotle was wrong.
@PrometheusWithLight First off, actual infinities cannot materialize within the universe.
Second, I think you're misunderstanding the term 'heat death.' By heat death, I'm alluding to the idea that energy becomes less and less organized and less usable because of entropy until it is no longer helpful at all. Sure there's still energy in the system, but at this point, it's useless and irretrievable.
I'm not assuming -it has to be so by the canons of logic. Aristotle was right.
@M3PanoS 'actual infinities cannot materialize within the universe.'
Not only can they, but the law prior to the one you're referring to would mean that they necessarily do. 'Infinite' means to extend indefinitely and if a fixed amount of energy exists within an isolated system then it would have to exist indefinitely.
To 'extend indefinitely' is not an actual infinity; it's a potential infinity.
Also, your analogy doesn't work because the north pole, as contextualized in this scenario, is the ACTUAL most north point. Indefinite existence however is a POTENTIAL infinite, not an actual.
@TheScienceFoundation Haha, I'm not changing the subject, I'm trying to shed some light on the subject. The fact that you didn't recognize that...nevermind.
Ok, what does to extend indefinitely mean -don't use infinity.
@TheScienceFoundation It's pretty ironic how you're so desperate to affirm that the universe is it (finito, end of story) that you're not even willing to keep thinking about the topic. And then you turn around and have the audacity to say things like God is a science stopper.
The question is 100% relevant. YOU just have this vain hope that if you can stop one step short of the conclusion you can convince other people to also stop, allowing you to escape the implications of continuing.
1. Black holes are infinitely dense. Yes, you can have infinities in the universe, under special circumstances.
2. What you mean is, because of the universe's expansion, energy is able to escape into the void between matter, where it won't interact with matter. Although energy doesn't leave the universe, it does leave the individual closed systems of matter. There is no void for energy to escape into, in the case of the initial singularity though.
2. That said a whole lot of nothing since you said nothing about entropy that I didn't already take into account in my previous point.
3. Cause and effect are by definition linear. Linearity however doesn't necessitate a timescale -all it necessitates is that one event was caused by another.
I don't think it's possible for the universe to be eternal, and even if it was, it's existence is still unaccounted for.
Everything needs accounting for. If you don't think so, that's where your thinking stops. You can go back to doing whatever you were doing before, but don't try to stop everyone else from going on because you think the question is irrelevant. This is arguably the greatest question ever posited and you want to throw it away? And God is the supposed thought stopper...rolls eyes. -_-
@TheScienceFoundation@M3PanoS has a point. We could claim anything, but that does not answer the question. If it turns out that anything is truly eternal...the question is "How is it that it is eternal?"
Everything needs accounting, since, it would be an assertion if the question is not addressed.
Ok, let me give it to you as a simplified equation: lim 1/x (x->0 from the right)
2. Ok, let me simplify my point for you; the energy of the initial singularity CAN'T shift into a less useful configuration, because there is no other state for it to shift into until the universe expands a bit.
3. When I say "linear causality," I refer to the straight line typically envisioned.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. How about you actually define it because I'm SURE there's an equivocation fallacy somewhere in there. What are you giving me a limit equation for? Even with your limit equation though, that's not actually infinity but an approximation towards it.
2. Ok, but since we're not in a singularity right now, the usefulness of our energy is rapidly in decline. How do you propose we reverse this process?
1. I used an approximation to illustrate to you the concept of infinity. The fact that it is a limit is irrelevant, and you're just being facetious now.
2. Reverse it?
We can't reverse it. Not by ourselves anyway. Only the universe itself can do that, and even then, it depends on the rate of expansion. If it slows down, reverses, and has a big crunch, that would prevent heat death.
If it continues expanding, especially if at an increasing rate, no chance.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. An approximation is by definition INFINITELY far from infinity. Sorry, the only one being fallacious here is you.
2. Now you've entered the realm of strictly wishful thinking. There is no reason to posit a fluctuating universe -that addition is purely ad hoc and done purely for the sake of escaping the ultimate reality of a heat death. And that proposition, if true, still comes with its own set of problems since I'd then ask you what set this process in motion?
1. The word I used is facetious. Yes, it's an approximation. Yes, that isn't the same as infinity. It was supposed to get a concept across, but you choose to ignore the concept, and pick at an irrelevant part of my explanation.
2. I realize there's no reason to assume that the universe oscillates. It was hypothetical, not done to escape any reality (and we'd die from the crunch anyway, so how's it escaping anything?)
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Sorry, I read the word wrong. No, you're trying to say a potential infinity is an actual infinity and get frustrated when I point out the difference between the two since it stops whatever concept you're trying to get across.
2. Lol, you're right on the big crunch. And I can see why you may think my question is loaded (it assumes there was a beginning), but so is yours since you assume a beginning is unnecessary. In that case, let me ask another: Why is it fluctuating?
1. The difference between the two is irrelevant. You're still being facetious.
In the context of our conversation, in which I pointed out that the universe may be of infinite age, infinity here means "without a beginning."
2. I didn't ask any questions, loaded or otherwise. I simply stated "we have no reason to assume a big bang is necessary." We also can't say why it's oscillating until we know that it IS.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Haha the difference between an actual infinity and a potential infinity is irrelevant? Get out of here. The only one with a hint of facetiousness here (used correctly this time :)), is you.
Without beginning means that it has existed eternally and must therefore be an actual infinity, something that can't exist within the dictates of the physical realm.
2. So you're saying stop asking questions because we're getting dangerously close to God and I don't like it. :P
1. Ordinarily, no. A universal singularity, however, changes the rules a little. It's why so many physics equations break down at that point.
2. No, and I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.
When you ask "why," you're asking "what was god's reasoning?" It's a loaded question. You have to assume the existence of a god, and no, I don't feel comfortable making grandiose assumptions.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. If the physics equations break down, then how can you demonstrate that a singularity is actually possible...
2. I didn't put a single word in your mouth. No I'm not; I ask why and don't rule out the possibility that it could have been God's decision. You, however, don't want to ask that why question because then God's will becomes a plausible answer and you want a way of keeping that answer out of the picture.
1. We can't, exactly. Most big bang models actually start one planck time after the big bang starts. Again, I realize there's no evidence of the universe getting around the infinite age problem as a singularity, again, no more evidence than that there was a creator. I suggested it as an alternative possibility. You need evidence before you can say that one model is more right than another.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. You naturalists seem to like to throw that word 'evidence' around like it's some kind of mantra that can keep you from thinking or something. By definition, you can't have natural evidence from before the big bang, but that's exactly the kind of evidence you want when you say the word 'evidence.' So you basically define the the term out of existence and then ask me to pop it back into existence only to say: "That's not evidence." Nice try, but I'm not falling for it. -_-
@M3PanoS 2. Actually, asking "why," pretty much the only answer is "god's will." A sentient being, capable of creating a universe, you may as well call it god.. Thing is, though, we have no reason to think that such a being exists, so speculating on "why" is pointless.
If we aren't ever able to figure out the origin of the universe, and I don't agree that we won't, then we should say "I don't know" anyway, because that statement, at least, we know to be true.
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Thank you. Then either accept the answer or accept the fact that you're afraid to ask the question. No, you just want to stop one step short of coming to the logical conclusion because you see the implications it will have on your life.
When I said we many never know the origin of the universe, I was talking about the how. And for that we will indeed never know -especially when we got hardcore naturalists like yourself wanting to stop short of any meaningful answer.
1. If you can't find any evidence of your idea, then be honest with me. Say "I don't know." You don't.
2. I'm not afraid to ask that question. In order to ask it, you need to first determine that the universe is the creation of some sentience, and I haven't seen that yet.
As to the implications on my life, it has none whatsoever.
No answer is meaningful that isn't an answer at all.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. No, I told you that the only justifiable circle is God. He is the ultimate ontological foundation for everything -if you have something else, bring it.
2. No you don't. You just ask it, and then go from there. ]
Haha, yea right.
Exactly why I don't accept your answer that the universe "just is."
1. He is not. He is a supposition, and therefore, not an ontological foundation for anything. I have nothing else, but I'm honest. I admit that I don't know.
2. "Just asking it" is ignoring a critical assumption of the question.
The question literally has no implications on my life. If we did find a deity, would I change my life? The answer is no.
I don't have an "answer." Lack of knowledge isn't an answer. I just want you to concede that you share that lack, delusions aside.
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Meh, whatever. If you keep thinking, maybe one day you'll come to it yourself.
2. And the fact that you wouldn't change your life depending on the dictates set forth by the deity proves that you don't care about the issue, so why are you so vehemently defending yourself anyways? The only thing you care about is not having to care.
No, I won't concede that when I think I have a strong case for my beliefs. You, on the other hand, are right in conceding you don't know.
2. I'm not defending myself. I like arguing about all sorts of things online; it introduces me to new arguments and evidence that I would not otherwise be aware of. Besides, the fact that it wouldn't change any of my activities doesn't mean I'm not curious. That's the thing about admitting what you don't know; you go out, and try to learn.
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Yea, that's a lie. You haven't even engaged in what I've said up until now. You just keep asserting that: "The universe's existence can be a recursive loop but you're an idiot for thinking that circular reasoning can ever be justified."
"Besides, the fact that it wouldn't change any of my activities doesn't mean I'm not curious."
Oh that's cool, the creator of the universe wants to give me unfathomable riches but I'm cool just doing my own thing. Lolwut.
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Cool story. But this does nothing to get rid of ENTROPY. I'm getting really tired of this...
Who cares? I mean you don't, and as such, you're not getting invited to the party. :D
Oh what? So you're not going to accept the riches if they're contingent on you not murdering, stealing, lying and cheating? Then I'd have to ask why do you want to do those things? Oops, you've exposed yourself...
2. Ok, it's clear to me that you didn't understand the thought experiment. I have no way to simplify it, so I'll let that rest.
I don't care. Besides, I was being facetious.
I don't murder, I don't steal, I don't cheat, and everyone lies, if only for the sake of being polite. The fact that I don't do those things, though, is my choice. No, it isn't contingent on possible rewards.
I was actually referring to the whole not getting kneebound thing that I do every sunday.
2 (cont'd) If you want to know what sort of question I'd ask, related to the formation of the universe, this would be the first: "Is it possible for something to predate the big bang?" If no, then the bang WAS the beginning. If yes, "what did predate the big bang?" Further questions depend on the answer to that last.
3. The loop exists because it caused itself to exist. (Although this sounds like a paradox, it's not. It's an infinite recursion.)
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Lol, maybe impossible within the natural realm. In fact, it would have to be impossible which I could argue points to a superior realm. Look my man, the point is that eventually you get to the edge of what can be explained naturally, and to explain the existence of the universe itself you have to invoke a supernatural realm -but you really want to stop that from happening because at this point you've basically admitted the insufficient status of your position.
2. You do not have to invoke a supernatural realm at all. There's always an "edge of what can be explained naturally," and saying "god dun it" doesn't push that edge back.
Far better to simply admit that you don't know. Not yet. If you admit that you don't know, you'll want to know, and be pushed that much harder to discover the truth, whatever it may be.
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Haha, by edge I don't mean God of the gaps as you wish I did because I'm not invoking God to explain how a phenomenon works -in short that's a categorical error. If you want to go that route though, I can say "God dun it" for literally everything in the universe -but then I'd be making a categorical error since you're looking for the natural explanation and I'm giving you a purpose-driven one.
I don't think we'll ever be able to unveil the origin of the universe.
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Aha, finally you admit that your worldview is circular; damn it took you long enough. All I have to say is that an infinite recursion cannot exist within the natural realm because of the laws of causation that dictate it and because of this any possibility for an infinite recursion requires a higher plane of existence as a pre-requisite.
3. "My worldview?" It really isn't. We have no evidence to support this model. I only gave it as an example, to show that you need evidence before you can say one model is more right than the others.
Anyway, yes, it is circular. That's what a temporal loop means. Yes, it does require a fifth dimension, related to time. Yes, there's no evidence for that. No more evidence than you have for a creator, certainly. That's why you need evidence, so you know which is right.
@PrometheusWithLight 3. But the problem with this, is that eventually you have to get to the stopping point. Supposing your temporal loop hypothesis is true for a second, you'd then need to explain the fifth dimension and whatever else is necessitated by its existence. And you'll just go on...and on...and on...until you hit another circular loop or whatever.
However, the ONLY valid circular reasoning involves God, and as such, you must ultimately posit Him.
3. Stopping point? No. It's a loop. A temporal loop. Each point leads to the next, in a circle, with no beginning or end.
And no, this isn't circular reasoning. No circular reasoning is valid by definition.
You could call this an infinite regression, if you want, but in this most rare of cases, it's not invalid for that reason. (You have to justify an infinite regression; we do so with the nature of the loop.)
@PrometheusWithLight 3. *Sigh* When I said stopping point, I wasn't talking about the loop itself, but the reasoning for the loop's existence, and the reason for the reason for the loop's existence and so on ad infinitum.
If you don't think any circular reasoning is valid, then you're very naive and have probably never really questioned your own foundations for whatever you believe -you just took it on faith. :D I'm telling you that putting faith in God is the only rational position to have.
As for circular reasoning, maybe you need to look up what circular reasoning is... It's not a matter of faith, it's not a foundation for something that I believe. It literally is not a valid argument, because to make it, you need to assume that the conclusion is true, which makes the entire argument a redundancy.
I specifically claimed when I brought up this point that you would think it naive. So the fact that you overlooked that I had already accounted for your future grievances and yet you still chose to go to them only points to the fact that you either purposely dismissed what I said or that it clearly went over your head.
Circular reasoning is the only argument that isn't a formal fallacy because it doesn't break the chain of reasoning.
3. No, you said I was naive for dismissing circular reasoning. I did not call your claim naive, nor did I dismiss it. I did my damndest to explain to you what circular reasoning actually was, and why it isn't valid.
Circular reasoning does have an intact chain of reasoning, but one of its premises begs the question, which makes it an informal fallacy. (One of many, by the way. There are other informal fallacies.)
@PrometheusWithLight 3. You said circular reasoning is illogical and an absolute fallacy. I told you why it doesn't always have to be. You're just parroting what I already said you were going to say again... -_-
Thanks for repeating what I already said...seriously are you planning on engaging with anything I say or are you just going to stubbornly sit on your worldview and refuse to be critical of yourself?
3. It is a fallacy. You said it wasn't a FORMAL fallacy. I admitted that you were right, but that it was an INformal fallacy, which is a fallacy nonetheless.
My repetition of what you said was to compare what you said with what you said you said, and they didn't match up. I then corrected you, by explaining that I did not, in fact, say your post was naive, nor did I outright dismiss it. I explained why you were wrong.
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Oh, so in your mind a formal and informal fallacy are the same things anyways? Lol, so then why make the distinction at all?
Oh really? Is that why you can dismiss my argument on the grounds that it's circular but you don't dismiss your recursive loop on the same grounds? You're terribly inconsistent. And the thing about my argument is it isn't even circular, I just brought up circularity to make the point that it may not be fallacious.
3. They're different types of fallacies, but both fallacies. They're categorized in order to group them by what kind of fallacy they are. (To whit, formal fallacies have to do with the reasoning structure; the FORM of the argument.)
Let me say it again; circular reasoning isn't circular causality. Your argument isn't circular, and I must admit, I have no idea why you even mentioned circular reasoning in the first place.
@PrometheusWithLight 3. The reason I brought up circularity was to show that a naturalistic worldview -that is, to look for a natural reason for the explanation of the universe -is invalid and not possible. And that's what it seems you were getting at with your recursive loop, which like I've also said countless times, even if I granted, would eventually die out because of entropy. Un-entropization (yes I made that up) necessitates a higher realm -there's no getting out of that.
3. Telling me that circular reasoning is valid in no way makes the claim that a naturalistic explanation of the universe is invalid. You're trying to change the subject.
The temporal loop has nothing to do with circular reasoning. It also doesn't have entropy problems. I tried to explain that one, but you're having trouble with it...
Un-entropization doesn't require a higher realm, it requires a big crunch. A big crunch needs only negative acceleration of space-time expansion.
Oh it's pride is it? Somehow it always does come down to this, satan you little de...anyways. Well, what if you accidentally murdered someone? How would you ever live with yourself? Or if you wrecked something that was irreplaceable?
2. If I murdered someone accidentally, I'd be sad. It is, however, an accident, and accidents happen. If I wrecked something irreplaceable on accident, I'd probably be a bit less sad, because I tend to value lives more than things.
How does any of that have anything to do with pride?
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Oh so you just go on living your life? Too bad so sad sort of deal? Of course you're going to say no here, but that is essentially what you would do, so don't try and deny it. And what if it happened to you? No chance at recovery?
Because someone is offering you a way out of this scenario and you don't want to take it because of this stupid idea that it will impinge on your free will when on naturalism you are FORCED to conclude determinism. How do you like dem apples?
@M3PanoS 2. Yes, although a bit more sympathetically then you describe.
What am I supposed to do, kill myself over an accident?
If I were killed by accident, I'd be dead. Where were you going with that?
Anyway, yeah. I agree that my free will is a product of my temperment, and the conditions of my life. That doesn't mean that I'll abandon that for the first omnipotent tyrant that comes along.
@PrometheusWithLight 2. From a brute facts perspective, I described the scenario exactly right since sympathy is the subjective journey (of remorse, guilt, shame, etc.) you take -the fact that you take the journey and end up with NO answer is indisputable though.
I don't know? Maybe?
I meant what if you were permanently disfigured -just throw the concept of fairness out the window and deal with it?
The only reason you don't believe in God is because you caricature Him -I don't worship Satan.
2. The answer I end up with is "accidents happen." It's very sad that he died, sadder to me personally if I was involved with that death. Even so, it was an accident, they do happen.
Why would I kill myself over an accident? That seems extreme...
Permanently disfigured? Strikes me as somewhat better than being dead. Yep, fairness will never exist. I'd have to deal.
How is Satan an omnipotent tyrant? I thought he was the trickster, who seduces people into joining him?
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Yes it does because a naturalistic explanation of the universe is NECESSARILY circular.
How doesn't it have entropy problems? You just define it as such, however, you have no way of backing this up. So, I'll continue to have problems with it thank you very much.
Wouldn't the expansion be less the second time around because of entropy? And so the big crunch will require less energy? And the next expansion even smaller, until finally it just stops. Dang I just dispro...
3. No it isn't. Case in point, the singularity bridging an infinite time length, and the oscillating bang/crunch model. Time loop isn't the only model.
No. Because space time itself collapses to a single point, all the energy that WAS useless is gathered back up. Like I said, the big crunch literally reverses entropy in a very rapid manner.
A big crunch doesn't reverse entropy. You just define it that way. And you still didn't answer the expansionary retractionary phases don't become smaller and smaller until those eventually stop. When you bounce a ball, eventually it stops bouncing -same concept with the fluctuating model.
3. A big crunch does reverse entropy. You just don't understand how it works. I'll try one more time.
By collapsing all of space-time into one point, all matter is crushed down, and converted back into energy. All of the energy leaked into the void between matter is crushed back together. Entropy is LITERALLY reversed in the process of the collapse.
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Yea, you don't understand how it works either, you just assert it does.
How can entropy be reversed? If it's reversed then it was never entropy. If you're talking about the entropy within the expanding universe maybe, but what about the entropy involved in the very system of expansion and collapse that the universe goes through?
3. The universe is presently expanding at a slightly accelerating rate. If the universe required energy to expand, it would be creating energy like mad, which is a massive violation of conservation of energy.
In simple terms, space time =/= energy. Entropy simply isn't involved with the universe's expansion.
As to your "bouncing ball," no. The ball stops bouncing due to air friction, and slight adhesion to the ground. We're not aware of a force that stops the expansion/contraction of space-time, nor are we aware of an energy actually required.
No, I got your point. Energy is lost over time when you bounce a ball; that's a good analogy for entropy.
As I said earlier, though, the expansion/contraction of space-time neither consumes nor releases energy. It merely changes the distribution of energy and mass within it.
As for a force that starts the expansion of the universe, I don't know. In order to figure that out, we need to look at a pre-big bang universe. Several ideas are about, but they have to be tested, as no evidence supports any of them.
@PrometheusWithLight Yea, I'm not going to reply to you. Take this as an admission of defeat, but I honestly don't care about talking with you anymore.
I understand why you utterly HAVE to respond though because unless you keep plugging up the holes in your leaking ship, eventually the whole thing's going to go down. Here's my piece of advice though: Get a new damn ship.
@PrometheusWithLight A loop is not an infinite regression, it's just a circle. So it doesn't regress anywhere, it just goes on infinitely within itself.
And this loop cannot exist within the universe because, how I already pointed out, of the law of entropy.
@M3PanoS It's infinite in the sense of recursion. Maybe that would be a better term; infinite recursion.
A temporal loop COULD exist, because entropy has nothing to do with temporal loops.
I think you're thinking of the oscillating model of the universe, in which case, since the universe collapses periodically in that model, entropy is essentially reversed in the big crunch.
No, eventually the loop would slow down and sputter out in a whimper.
4. Eh, I know enough. I think I do actually, it begins with an a and ends with theism. Or do you prefer the word skepticism? Either way, I know your position better than you do, since you'd probably be hard-pressed to even define it.
Yeahno. Entropy doesn't apply to a temporal loop. Consider the following thought experiment:
Humans somehow develop a machine that can create a universe. We put it in a time machine, throw it into the past, and create our own universe. What effect does this have on entropy? None whatsoever.
As for the big crunch, no. The big crunch LITERALLY reverses entropy. It breaks matter into energy, gathers it into one spot, etc.
@PrometheusWithLight Haha, the problem is with your thought experiment. Your supposition will NEVER happen; of course if we could make such a machine then entropy wouldn't exist -that's the whole dilemma. You can' make an entropic-free machine out of entropy-laden parts... -_-
So unless you invoke a supernatural realm free of entropy in which to build your machine -your whole thought experiment falls apart.
It's a hypothetical scenario used to illustrate a concept. By attacking the stipulations of the hypothetical, you're being facetious again.
Yes, if it'll make you happy, let's say people fly a time machine to a supernatural realm of magic and unicorn farts, build their universe generating machine, and fly back in time, and create their own universe.
Can you see, then, how the universe's entropy wouldn't decay with each iteration of the loop?
@PrometheusWithLight No, you're just mad that it was so easy for me to obliterate your half-baked thought experiment.
Cool, then it could happen. But I don't see why you need unicorn farts -oh wait, you're trying to reduce my position absurdity since you can't actually cogently argue against it. You're too smart for me bro. :(
No, a thought experiment requires you to make assumptions. That's why it's called a "thought experiment;" it's not a real life scenario, it's entirely hypothetical.
Actually, I said "unicorn farts" because when people get facetious, I get sarcastic. Ok, assuming the assistance of a magical realm ENTIRELY DEVOID OF UNICORN FARTS, would you see that the entropy of the universe is not reduced with each iteration of the temporal loop?
@PrometheusWithLight Sorry but your assumption invokes a supernatural realm. The intrinsic nature of your suppositions make the supernatural necessary before you can even begin speaking.
None of my arguments so far have been facetious in the slightest -or do you still think actual infinities exist lol? ...citing my facetiousness. -_-
Yes, but then you've already admitted to the 'magical realm' which is what you were trying to get rid of haha.
Oh good grief. I don't think you actually know what facetious means.
For the record, in this context, it means "concerned with details that are trivial."
You haven't examined the concept being explained in the thought experiment, instead locking on to a stipulation that you think proves your point. I'm actually inclined to think you're trolling now.
@PrometheusWithLight Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but the thing is that you're trivializing matters that are of significant importance just so you can label them facetious and then think you're justified in not dealing with them. I have a surprise for you: you haven't dealt with them -not even in the slightest.
Lol, that stipulation DOES prove my point. I've been trolling very mildly for some time now, just because of how ignorant some of the things you say are. :P
Actually, because those things are stipulations to a hypothetical situation, and I admitted that, they become trivial. The fact that one of them is what you're trying to prove was entirely irrelevant to the concept that my thought experiment was supposed to get across to you. I thought if I conceded it, you'd make more of an effort to understand what I was trying to get across.
@PrometheusWithLight No they don't, because they are an integral part of the thought experiment. And if you wish for that thought experiment to have any bearing in reality then they are very important. Only if you don't are they trivial. But then I must ask why you cam up with the thought experiment in the first place since it does nothing to help your case?
What were you trying to get across? Sorry, I'll try to pay better attention this time around.
I was trying to get across the lack of effect that a temporal loop has on entropy.
Here's the thought experiment: Some guys use a time machine, go back in time, and use inexplicable technology/magic/whatever the hell you want them to to create the universe that they themselves came from in their time machine.
As you can see, this timeline makes a loop. Does the entropy of the universe run down with each iteration of the loop?
I think we're just going to forget about the thought experiment. You said you'd try to think about it, about the point that I'm trying to get across to you, and I'm just not seeing it. Either you like trolling too much, or you genuinely don't understand what's being presented to you.
@PrometheusWithLight I asked you to re-present the thought experiment, and you accuse me of not trying to understand? Lol, the way I did understand it the first time I think was correct, and that's why I asked you to present it again, because I must have missed something. But I don't think I did, and you're mad that it doesn't pass muster under scrutiny so of course you say I don't understand it. I can say that about you too... -_-
I did repeat the thought experiment. For the second time, instead of looking at the concept being illustrated, you latched onto an irrelevant detail. Attacking the stipulation of a thought experiment isn't "scrutiny," it's a refusal to partake in the thought experiment.
You are wrong because you're supposed to be looking at the effects of a temporal loop on entropy in this model; you did not, either time, look at the entropy.
@M3PanoS So, you define me by what I don't believe in, do you?
So what do I call you, a non-Buddhist?
Ok, so your clue to the clue is Jesus.
Um... yeah. Decent character, many words put into his mouth by his disciples...
Why's he relevant? Don't say he was prophecised in the bible, ergo the bible is true. Please don't. So many people say that, and it's always disappointing.
@PrometheusWithLight Yea, but only because this belief is pertinent to everyone.
You can do that, but I don't care since Buddhism isn't pertinent to truth.
Yup. :D
Oh yea, why's that? Why don't you let me know why I can't say any of those things? You've already debunked them or something lol? Or what about the resurrection -you already debunked that too?
Actually, theism wouldn't be pertinent to Buddhists. They're technically athiests, and tend to live in Buddhist regions.
...
Please. Please tell me you're kidding. Please tell me you aren't trying to prove that the bible is true because a prophecy about a character in the bible came true in the bible.
If it really is your intent to prove that the bible is right because a character in the bible was prophecised to do several things, and he did those things, one of which was dying and coming back to life, I will, as you did, give you a hint as to why that argument fails.
The Harry Potter series is an intentionally and explicitly fictional work that makes no claims on the real world. None of the characters or places therein actually exists in the real world, and thus I have no idea why you would take it as non-fiction.
However, the characters and places within the Bible have actually existed in the real world and as such the claims of the Bible are pertinent to the real world.
I will not dispute that Harry Potter is non-fiction. I'm just saying, internally fulfilled prophecies and resurrections mentioned in a book, do not make it a work of non-fiction.
So, you actually introduce a new argument here. There are actually people and places in the bible that existed. True.
However, the same is true of the book "Johnny Tremain." That's a work of historical fiction.
@PrometheusWithLight Uh, but historical accounts do lol. That's the key point you're missing. And the other key point is that the Bible isn't just one book -it's 60.
Thank you. Now evaluate those claims. I can't possibly see how this is the first you've heard of this though unless you willingly took everything ass-backward when talking to people -or just avoided it all together.
It's not historical fiction -it's historical account. Maybe that's why archaeological digs confirm it.
A. Josephus is hearsay, and the Tacitus account is widely considered a forgery; it's not in his usual style of writing, lasts a single paragraph, and is never mentioned again.
B. It's a compilation. Irrelevant.
C. Archaeological digs would confirm Johnny Tremain, if we had to dig. (Many of the characters and events in the book are real; that's what historical fiction means. It's a fictitious account of a real story.)
@PrometheusWithLight A. Doesn't matter. The church fathers never used Josephus or Tacitus in early church history because the evidence of Jesus was so abundant as to not have to bring in such outlandish sources into the picture. Only reason it's done in recent scholarship is because of the pervasive nature of Christ-mythicists who demand secular accounts -of which there are many others by the way.
B. Wholly relevant since in order to disprove the Bible you'd have to disprove each separate book.
B. I'm not out to disprove the bible. I'm challenging IT to prove itself. I could challenge you to prove each of those 60 books, but I won't. One will work.
@PrometheusWithLight A. christianthinktank(dot)com/topix(dot)html Knock yourself out.
B. Then by definition you have to disprove it since there's a dichotomy here: it's either true or it's not. I affirm that the Bible has proven itself based on my evaluation. Now disprove it. Fine, disprove one.
A. Long list, word secular never appears. "Non-christian sources" only yields info on messianic expectations, which I don't care about.
B. The fact that you say the bible is true does not prove the bible. Challenging me to disprove it is shifting the burden of proof. I make no claim that it is false, however I will continue to be skeptical until it is proven true.
@PrometheusWithLight A. Sorry that I can't give you an example of the word secular appearing in the first century AD when that word didn't even originate until 1250 AD. :(
Non-Christian sources are actually just as good if not better than secular sources because non-Christians had an agenda of trying to debunk Christianity -much like you do today.
B. Suit yourself, but then you haven't actually evaluated it. Whenever I say 'prophecy' you cringe, but you haven't even looked at them lol.
A. Um... maybe you weren't paying attention. The "non secular sources" discussed messianic EXPECTATIONS, not experiences.
B. First of all, internally made and fulfilled prophecies, such as Jesus' first coming, don't prove anything, to whit, harry potter.
Second, externally fulfilled prophecies may be self fulfilling, to whit, the consensus among allied christian nations at the end of WWII to make Israel happen.
@PrometheusWithLight C. No they wouldn't. They would confirm the events alluded to within Johnny Tremain -not the story of Johnny Tremain himself. However, the types of documents we're dealing with aren't even works of historical fiction -they are first hand eyewitness accounts and are thus the types of accounts that are used to re-create what the event must have been like in the first place.
@PrometheusWithLight C. Dude, every time my argument becomes a little bit too complex for you, you just dismiss it as being facetious. No wonder, I can't get through to you, you're committed to a shallow methodology for evaluating these claims that bars you from truly critically thinking about the topics and affords you the privilege of keeping your old views.
No, I call you that when you miss the point of what I said, and fixate on an irrelevant detail.
You're relying the biblic accounts, to provide your eyewitnesses. Really. That would be like using the characters from Johnny Tremain as eyewitnesses to Tremain's existence. It's circular reasoning, but then, you think circular reasoning is valid, don't you?
@PrometheusWithLight Uh, I don't think you're getting it. Forget the word Bible. "The Bible" wasn't even compiled until centuries after the life of Jesus. All we had were the eyewitness accounts of the disciples and a scattered collection of different documents pertaining to Christian thought.
Not circular. Johnny Tremain is a fictional character. The Bible talks about actual historical events. How am I supposed to get this in your head when you have a pre-commitment against believing it?
If you want to forget the blanket term "the bible," that's fine. In that case, we're putting all of the "eyewitness testimonies" from the disciples to the test, so they STILL can't be admitted as evidence to prove themselves right.
I have no pre-commitments; I have skepticism. I suggest reading "The Lost World" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I need evidence; show me, and I will believe. Until then, Jesus is just as real to me as Johnny Tremain.
Take the Civil War for example -if you were to try to differentiate between what really happened with what is embellishment, then you'd have to evaluate competing sources for their veracity. What comes at the top? Eyewitness accounts -exactly the type of accounts we have for Jesus' life. So when you're looking to see if Johnny Tremain's story is real, you place it against the type of accounts I'm saying were used to testify for Jesus' life.
Actually, Johnny Tremain isn't contradicted by most eyewitness accounts. Oh, and by the way, the bible is the book that we're trying to determine whether it's real or not, so I really hope those "eyewitness accounts" you mention aren't named "mark," "John," and "Paul."
This has been flagged as spam show
and?
RosesEternal 10 hours ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The atheist Delusion!
The Need of the World for One Without Need!
The principle of causality is a general and universal law and foundation for all efforts of man, both in the acquisition of knowledge and in his customary activities. The strivings of scholars to uncover the cause of every phenomenon, whether natural or social, arise from the belief that *no* phenomenon originates in and of itself *without* the intervention of causes and agents.
1tabligh 3 weeks ago
I like that at 00:30 he makes fun of some atheist quote that begins with "philosophically" when he himself only has a PhD in philosophy of science. What a joke this guy is.
LOL4Polio 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
A rambling piece of nonsense delivered to some ignorant kids
4312ton 1 month ago
This the Discovery Institutes ultimate goal. By pass the Established scientific method of peer review and scientific consensus completely and plug their god of the gaps bullshit directly to kids.
wowamonn 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
First 40 seconds was pretty much bashing atheism with no proof and the rest was rhetorical nonsense, also with no proof.
No wonder you've disabled likes.
saiyanmage 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
This has been flagged as spam show
1. Everything that exists, has a beginning
2. God has no beginning
3. God does not exist
theBartone9119 1 month ago
OMG lying to kidz!!
scarletharlot69 2 months ago
Kepler, Galileo and Boyle didn't have Radio, IR, UV, X-ray or Gamma ray telescopes, spectroscopes, cyclotrons, particle accelerators, super computers or even calculators.
"New Atheism is the Old Atheism repackaged?"
Just like "Enteligunt Dezine" is old Creationism repackaged?
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@CrocodilusPontifex - your comment is not really a rebuttal of anything. Care to elaborate. What caused the universe?
BeatleEDs 2 months ago
@BeatleEDs Our universe was created when 2 membranes, the 11-dimensional energy barriers separating 2 of several previously existing universes, collided, bubbled out and injected their energy and mass into our new universe. Look up M-Theory.
CrocodilusPontifex 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex - Well, I don't need to look it, I am very familiar. And it's 10 dimensions + time. I subscribe to string theory (and M) but we have no evidence.
With all that said, I don't get your argument. String theory supports creation and a cause for our universe.,
BeatleEDs 2 months ago
@CrocodilusPontifex
thats 1 interpretation of m-theory & its not even the most popular, theres no reason to think its true anyway.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@CrocodilusPontifex
That interpretation called (The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Model) fails because it predicts the brain on which we live have a positive tension but in the Ekpyrotic scenario it has a negative tension, 2ndly it needs an extrodanary amount of fine tunning 3rdly the collapsing & retreating brains are the equivelent of a 4 dimension universe which undergoes an eternal cycle contractions & expansions , but we know theres no way for a universe to pass threw a singularity.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
-CrocodilusPontifex
finnaly theres no way information from one brain can go to the next.
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
Oh no! The cosmological argument is so strooong...
anglicantian 3 months ago
...and god so loved the world he murdered every pregnant women and child alive.
cbilljones 3 months ago
"TrueU: If there's a beginning, must there be a cause for that beginning? "
Perhaps. This sounds logical. However, none of the religious texts can provide any insight. The Bible claims God created Adam and Eve and they messed up by eating an apple which condemned the rest of humanity for eternity, but we all know that's not true. It's really quite stupid. If God wanted us to behave a certain way, God should have been wiser when outlining these behaviors. Alas, it was just human writings . . .
fumanxxx 3 months ago
Science has progressed a long way from the days of Galileo & Newton. There still is no scientific proof of a creator. The more we learn about nature, the less there is need to invoke supernatural causes for life in this universe.
The Discovery Institute agenda is to push for the existence of a Judeo-Christian interpretation of life. Real science does not start with a conclusion, then look for corroborating evidence, it tests hypotheses & draws conclusions based on the empirical evidence.
CamW30 4 months ago
We don't currently have any theory for an ultimate beginning, so, suggesting that there is that shows an ultimate beginning is dishonest.
MyContext 4 months ago
thesciencefoundation doesnt like when people disobey his atheistic rules so he stalks channels like this to argue pointlessly to no avail science should explore every avenue and find truth
DeJay17Revolution 4 months ago
@DeJay17Revolution Of course it should explore every avenue, and theists should have the intellectual dignity to admit none of it supports their claims.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@DeJay17Revolution Funny & ironic that so many youtube atheists feel the insecure need to nickname thenselves "Rational this or Science that", yet they mostly resort to mockery, shouting down and the genetic fallacy. They only accept what they want to hear. Science has nothing to do with it.
Galmozzi99 4 months ago
@Galmozzi99 So what's the evidence, mechanism, hypothesis or falsifiable predictions for creationism/ID that are being dismissed?
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@DeJay17Revolution
Yep. Science should explore every avenue.
DI just has to find an avenue for us to explore. They haven't yet. (Avenue, here meaning "falsifiable hypothesis.")
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
The universe is infinite,GOD made the universe.
levonet33 4 months ago
And in the end of the theists search for the beginning there was special pleading, and it was fallacious.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Tell me what the uncaused cause must have been like. This, I really want to hear.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 7
@M3PanoS From everything we can tell, energy has existed indefinitely.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Then why will the universe die in a heat death?
M3PanoS 4 months ago 5
@M3PanoS It won't, entropy applies to the energy contained within an isolated system, not the system itself. The system can still be subject to cyclicity IE quantum loop gravity.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I don't know anything about quantum loop gravity so I won't pretend to, but I still think I can offer up some valid questions:
Is the universe, taken as an aggregate of all the things within it, not an isolated system? What do you mean by the system itself? And why would the universe be subject to cyclicity? If you're trying to make a case for a fluctuating universe (not sure), then how did the process begin?
M3PanoS 4 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
@M3PanoS The universe, as in the totality of all existence, is the only isolated system. By the system itself I mean the universe in its entirety not just the energy within it. It would be subject to cyclicity because there is no upper limit of the mass of a gravity well, only time.
'then how did the process begin? '
That's an erroneous question, sort of like asking what's north of the north pole.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation I'm sorry, but asking how the cycle began is not an erroneous question since you set up an erroneous analogy -one that you've probably heard Hawking say no doubt. Since your analogy doesn't follow from my question, you saying the analogy doesn't work has no bearing on what I asked. So, I'll ask again: How did the process start?
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS It's an entirely valid analogy because 'north of the north pole' is as meaningless as 'what created indefinitely existing existence'
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
The universe might not be subject to cyclicity. It may be that it existed for what amounts to an infinite amount of time as a singularity. (It wouldn't suffer from heat death, or even heat loss, because there's no external environment for that heat to escape into.)
We're not really making a case for anything. We're just making a point; you can't simply assume that everything has a beginning. Aristotle was wrong.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight First off, actual infinities cannot materialize within the universe.
Second, I think you're misunderstanding the term 'heat death.' By heat death, I'm alluding to the idea that energy becomes less and less organized and less usable because of entropy until it is no longer helpful at all. Sure there's still energy in the system, but at this point, it's useless and irretrievable.
I'm not assuming -it has to be so by the canons of logic. Aristotle was right.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 5
@M3PanoS 'actual infinities cannot materialize within the universe.'
Not only can they, but the law prior to the one you're referring to would mean that they necessarily do. 'Infinite' means to extend indefinitely and if a fixed amount of energy exists within an isolated system then it would have to exist indefinitely.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What law did I refer to?
To 'extend indefinitely' is not an actual infinity; it's a potential infinity.
Also, your analogy doesn't work because the north pole, as contextualized in this scenario, is the ACTUAL most north point. Indefinite existence however is a POTENTIAL infinite, not an actual.
So no, your analogy doesn't follow.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS The second law of thermodynamics.
To extend indefinitely is an actual infinity, so yes my analogy follows
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Ok.
And no, it's not an actual infinity.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS Yes, it is.
infinity : the quality of being infinite
infinite: extending indefinitely merriam-webster(.)com/dictionary/infinite
If mass/energy exists which cannot be destroyed, then it existence will extend indefinitely.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Lol, alright, alright...you got me... O.O *GASP*
...wait no you didn't... ^_^
Are mass and energy not measurable? How do you measure mass and energy?
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS Yes, I did. They will extend indefinitely, IE infinitely.
'Are mass and energy not measurable? How do you measure mass and energy? '
Not relevant.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Indefinitely doesn't equal infinity...but anyways, you can keep talking...
Wholly relevant. Answer the question.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS Yes, it does. That's exactly what infinity means, it's the very definition.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Yes, it does. That's exactly what potential infinity means, it's the very definition.
And you still haven't answered my question. >:(
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS I'm still trying to educate you on infinity which is why I'm not letting you change the subject.
infinity (not potential infinity, but actual infinity) : the quality of being infinite ; to extend indefinitely.
To extend indefinitely means infinite, not potential infinite.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Haha, I'm not changing the subject, I'm trying to shed some light on the subject. The fact that you didn't recognize that...nevermind.
Ok, what does to extend indefinitely mean -don't use infinity.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS It means extending with no limit.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation What are you extending?
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS The existence of energy.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation It's pretty ironic how you're so desperate to affirm that the universe is it (finito, end of story) that you're not even willing to keep thinking about the topic. And then you turn around and have the audacity to say things like God is a science stopper.
The question is 100% relevant. YOU just have this vain hope that if you can stop one step short of the conclusion you can convince other people to also stop, allowing you to escape the implications of continuing.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
1. Black holes are infinitely dense. Yes, you can have infinities in the universe, under special circumstances.
2. What you mean is, because of the universe's expansion, energy is able to escape into the void between matter, where it won't interact with matter. Although energy doesn't leave the universe, it does leave the individual closed systems of matter. There is no void for energy to escape into, in the case of the initial singularity though.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Define infinitely.
2. That said a whole lot of nothing since you said nothing about entropy that I didn't already take into account in my previous point.
3. Cause and effect are by definition linear. Linearity however doesn't necessitate a timescale -all it necessitates is that one event was caused by another.
I don't think it's possible for the universe to be eternal, and even if it was, it's existence is still unaccounted for.
I don't care.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 6
@M3PanoS 'and even if it was, it's existence is still unaccounted for.'
Again, that's contradictory. If it has existed indefinitely then no accounting for is required.
TheScienceFoundation 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation Can you measure energy?
Everything needs accounting for. If you don't think so, that's where your thinking stops. You can go back to doing whatever you were doing before, but don't try to stop everyone else from going on because you think the question is irrelevant. This is arguably the greatest question ever posited and you want to throw it away? And God is the supposed thought stopper...rolls eyes. -_-
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation @M3PanoS has a point. We could claim anything, but that does not answer the question. If it turns out that anything is truly eternal...the question is "How is it that it is eternal?"
Everything needs accounting, since, it would be an assertion if the question is not addressed.
MyContext 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
@M3PanoS
1. How do you not know what "infinitely" means?
Ok, let me give it to you as a simplified equation: lim 1/x (x->0 from the right)
2. Ok, let me simplify my point for you; the energy of the initial singularity CAN'T shift into a less useful configuration, because there is no other state for it to shift into until the universe expands a bit.
3. When I say "linear causality," I refer to the straight line typically envisioned.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. How about you actually define it because I'm SURE there's an equivocation fallacy somewhere in there. What are you giving me a limit equation for? Even with your limit equation though, that's not actually infinity but an approximation towards it.
2. Ok, but since we're not in a singularity right now, the usefulness of our energy is rapidly in decline. How do you propose we reverse this process?
M3PanoS 4 months ago 3
@M3PanoS
1. I used an approximation to illustrate to you the concept of infinity. The fact that it is a limit is irrelevant, and you're just being facetious now.
2. Reverse it?
We can't reverse it. Not by ourselves anyway. Only the universe itself can do that, and even then, it depends on the rate of expansion. If it slows down, reverses, and has a big crunch, that would prevent heat death.
If it continues expanding, especially if at an increasing rate, no chance.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. An approximation is by definition INFINITELY far from infinity. Sorry, the only one being fallacious here is you.
2. Now you've entered the realm of strictly wishful thinking. There is no reason to posit a fluctuating universe -that addition is purely ad hoc and done purely for the sake of escaping the ultimate reality of a heat death. And that proposition, if true, still comes with its own set of problems since I'd then ask you what set this process in motion?
M3PanoS 4 months ago 5
@M3PanoS
1. The word I used is facetious. Yes, it's an approximation. Yes, that isn't the same as infinity. It was supposed to get a concept across, but you choose to ignore the concept, and pick at an irrelevant part of my explanation.
2. I realize there's no reason to assume that the universe oscillates. It was hypothetical, not done to escape any reality (and we'd die from the crunch anyway, so how's it escaping anything?)
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Sorry, I read the word wrong. No, you're trying to say a potential infinity is an actual infinity and get frustrated when I point out the difference between the two since it stops whatever concept you're trying to get across.
2. Lol, you're right on the big crunch. And I can see why you may think my question is loaded (it assumes there was a beginning), but so is yours since you assume a beginning is unnecessary. In that case, let me ask another: Why is it fluctuating?
M3PanoS 4 months ago 5
@M3PanoS
1. The difference between the two is irrelevant. You're still being facetious.
In the context of our conversation, in which I pointed out that the universe may be of infinite age, infinity here means "without a beginning."
2. I didn't ask any questions, loaded or otherwise. I simply stated "we have no reason to assume a big bang is necessary." We also can't say why it's oscillating until we know that it IS.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Haha the difference between an actual infinity and a potential infinity is irrelevant? Get out of here. The only one with a hint of facetiousness here (used correctly this time :)), is you.
Without beginning means that it has existed eternally and must therefore be an actual infinity, something that can't exist within the dictates of the physical realm.
2. So you're saying stop asking questions because we're getting dangerously close to God and I don't like it. :P
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
1. Ordinarily, no. A universal singularity, however, changes the rules a little. It's why so many physics equations break down at that point.
2. No, and I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.
When you ask "why," you're asking "what was god's reasoning?" It's a loaded question. You have to assume the existence of a god, and no, I don't feel comfortable making grandiose assumptions.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. If the physics equations break down, then how can you demonstrate that a singularity is actually possible...
2. I didn't put a single word in your mouth. No I'm not; I ask why and don't rule out the possibility that it could have been God's decision. You, however, don't want to ask that why question because then God's will becomes a plausible answer and you want a way of keeping that answer out of the picture.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
1. We can't, exactly. Most big bang models actually start one planck time after the big bang starts. Again, I realize there's no evidence of the universe getting around the infinite age problem as a singularity, again, no more evidence than that there was a creator. I suggested it as an alternative possibility. You need evidence before you can say that one model is more right than another.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. You naturalists seem to like to throw that word 'evidence' around like it's some kind of mantra that can keep you from thinking or something. By definition, you can't have natural evidence from before the big bang, but that's exactly the kind of evidence you want when you say the word 'evidence.' So you basically define the the term out of existence and then ask me to pop it back into existence only to say: "That's not evidence." Nice try, but I'm not falling for it. -_-
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS 2. Actually, asking "why," pretty much the only answer is "god's will." A sentient being, capable of creating a universe, you may as well call it god.. Thing is, though, we have no reason to think that such a being exists, so speculating on "why" is pointless.
If we aren't ever able to figure out the origin of the universe, and I don't agree that we won't, then we should say "I don't know" anyway, because that statement, at least, we know to be true.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Thank you. Then either accept the answer or accept the fact that you're afraid to ask the question. No, you just want to stop one step short of coming to the logical conclusion because you see the implications it will have on your life.
When I said we many never know the origin of the universe, I was talking about the how. And for that we will indeed never know -especially when we got hardcore naturalists like yourself wanting to stop short of any meaningful answer.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
@M3PanoS
1. If you can't find any evidence of your idea, then be honest with me. Say "I don't know." You don't.
2. I'm not afraid to ask that question. In order to ask it, you need to first determine that the universe is the creation of some sentience, and I haven't seen that yet.
As to the implications on my life, it has none whatsoever.
No answer is meaningful that isn't an answer at all.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. No, I told you that the only justifiable circle is God. He is the ultimate ontological foundation for everything -if you have something else, bring it.
2. No you don't. You just ask it, and then go from there. ]
Haha, yea right.
Exactly why I don't accept your answer that the universe "just is."
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
1. He is not. He is a supposition, and therefore, not an ontological foundation for anything. I have nothing else, but I'm honest. I admit that I don't know.
2. "Just asking it" is ignoring a critical assumption of the question.
The question literally has no implications on my life. If we did find a deity, would I change my life? The answer is no.
I don't have an "answer." Lack of knowledge isn't an answer. I just want you to concede that you share that lack, delusions aside.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 1. Meh, whatever. If you keep thinking, maybe one day you'll come to it yourself.
2. And the fact that you wouldn't change your life depending on the dictates set forth by the deity proves that you don't care about the issue, so why are you so vehemently defending yourself anyways? The only thing you care about is not having to care.
No, I won't concede that when I think I have a strong case for my beliefs. You, on the other hand, are right in conceding you don't know.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
2. I'm not defending myself. I like arguing about all sorts of things online; it introduces me to new arguments and evidence that I would not otherwise be aware of. Besides, the fact that it wouldn't change any of my activities doesn't mean I'm not curious. That's the thing about admitting what you don't know; you go out, and try to learn.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Yea, that's a lie. You haven't even engaged in what I've said up until now. You just keep asserting that: "The universe's existence can be a recursive loop but you're an idiot for thinking that circular reasoning can ever be justified."
"Besides, the fact that it wouldn't change any of my activities doesn't mean I'm not curious."
Oh that's cool, the creator of the universe wants to give me unfathomable riches but I'm cool just doing my own thing. Lolwut.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
2. Sure I have. For the record, circular causality and circular reasoning are not the same thing.
Unfathomable riches? I didn't think that was god's thing. Isn't money the root of all evil?
Or are you talking about having a rich life? I don't think my life would be very rich at all if I couldn't do my own thing.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Cool story. But this does nothing to get rid of ENTROPY. I'm getting really tired of this...
Who cares? I mean you don't, and as such, you're not getting invited to the party. :D
Oh what? So you're not going to accept the riches if they're contingent on you not murdering, stealing, lying and cheating? Then I'd have to ask why do you want to do those things? Oops, you've exposed yourself...
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
2. Ok, it's clear to me that you didn't understand the thought experiment. I have no way to simplify it, so I'll let that rest.
I don't care. Besides, I was being facetious.
I don't murder, I don't steal, I don't cheat, and everyone lies, if only for the sake of being polite. The fact that I don't do those things, though, is my choice. No, it isn't contingent on possible rewards.
I was actually referring to the whole not getting kneebound thing that I do every sunday.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
2 (cont'd) If you want to know what sort of question I'd ask, related to the formation of the universe, this would be the first: "Is it possible for something to predate the big bang?" If no, then the bang WAS the beginning. If yes, "what did predate the big bang?" Further questions depend on the answer to that last.
3. The loop exists because it caused itself to exist. (Although this sounds like a paradox, it's not. It's an infinite recursion.)
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Lol, maybe impossible within the natural realm. In fact, it would have to be impossible which I could argue points to a superior realm. Look my man, the point is that eventually you get to the edge of what can be explained naturally, and to explain the existence of the universe itself you have to invoke a supernatural realm -but you really want to stop that from happening because at this point you've basically admitted the insufficient status of your position.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
2. You do not have to invoke a supernatural realm at all. There's always an "edge of what can be explained naturally," and saying "god dun it" doesn't push that edge back.
Far better to simply admit that you don't know. Not yet. If you admit that you don't know, you'll want to know, and be pushed that much harder to discover the truth, whatever it may be.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Haha, by edge I don't mean God of the gaps as you wish I did because I'm not invoking God to explain how a phenomenon works -in short that's a categorical error. If you want to go that route though, I can say "God dun it" for literally everything in the universe -but then I'd be making a categorical error since you're looking for the natural explanation and I'm giving you a purpose-driven one.
I don't think we'll ever be able to unveil the origin of the universe.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Aha, finally you admit that your worldview is circular; damn it took you long enough. All I have to say is that an infinite recursion cannot exist within the natural realm because of the laws of causation that dictate it and because of this any possibility for an infinite recursion requires a higher plane of existence as a pre-requisite.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 2
@M3PanoS
3. "My worldview?" It really isn't. We have no evidence to support this model. I only gave it as an example, to show that you need evidence before you can say one model is more right than the others.
Anyway, yes, it is circular. That's what a temporal loop means. Yes, it does require a fifth dimension, related to time. Yes, there's no evidence for that. No more evidence than you have for a creator, certainly. That's why you need evidence, so you know which is right.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. But the problem with this, is that eventually you have to get to the stopping point. Supposing your temporal loop hypothesis is true for a second, you'd then need to explain the fifth dimension and whatever else is necessitated by its existence. And you'll just go on...and on...and on...until you hit another circular loop or whatever.
However, the ONLY valid circular reasoning involves God, and as such, you must ultimately posit Him.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 3
@M3PanoS
3. Stopping point? No. It's a loop. A temporal loop. Each point leads to the next, in a circle, with no beginning or end.
And no, this isn't circular reasoning. No circular reasoning is valid by definition.
You could call this an infinite regression, if you want, but in this most rare of cases, it's not invalid for that reason. (You have to justify an infinite regression; we do so with the nature of the loop.)
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. *Sigh* When I said stopping point, I wasn't talking about the loop itself, but the reasoning for the loop's existence, and the reason for the reason for the loop's existence and so on ad infinitum.
If you don't think any circular reasoning is valid, then you're very naive and have probably never really questioned your own foundations for whatever you believe -you just took it on faith. :D I'm telling you that putting faith in God is the only rational position to have.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 2
@M3PanoS
3. The reasoning for the loop is self contained.
As for circular reasoning, maybe you need to look up what circular reasoning is... It's not a matter of faith, it's not a foundation for something that I believe. It literally is not a valid argument, because to make it, you need to assume that the conclusion is true, which makes the entire argument a redundancy.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Yea, ok. Whatever that means... >_>
I specifically claimed when I brought up this point that you would think it naive. So the fact that you overlooked that I had already accounted for your future grievances and yet you still chose to go to them only points to the fact that you either purposely dismissed what I said or that it clearly went over your head.
Circular reasoning is the only argument that isn't a formal fallacy because it doesn't break the chain of reasoning.
M3PanoS 4 months ago 2
@M3PanoS
3. No, you said I was naive for dismissing circular reasoning. I did not call your claim naive, nor did I dismiss it. I did my damndest to explain to you what circular reasoning actually was, and why it isn't valid.
Circular reasoning does have an intact chain of reasoning, but one of its premises begs the question, which makes it an informal fallacy. (One of many, by the way. There are other informal fallacies.)
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. You said circular reasoning is illogical and an absolute fallacy. I told you why it doesn't always have to be. You're just parroting what I already said you were going to say again... -_-
Thanks for repeating what I already said...seriously are you planning on engaging with anything I say or are you just going to stubbornly sit on your worldview and refuse to be critical of yourself?
M3PanoS 4 months ago 2
@M3PanoS
3. It is a fallacy. You said it wasn't a FORMAL fallacy. I admitted that you were right, but that it was an INformal fallacy, which is a fallacy nonetheless.
My repetition of what you said was to compare what you said with what you said you said, and they didn't match up. I then corrected you, by explaining that I did not, in fact, say your post was naive, nor did I outright dismiss it. I explained why you were wrong.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Oh, so in your mind a formal and informal fallacy are the same things anyways? Lol, so then why make the distinction at all?
Oh really? Is that why you can dismiss my argument on the grounds that it's circular but you don't dismiss your recursive loop on the same grounds? You're terribly inconsistent. And the thing about my argument is it isn't even circular, I just brought up circularity to make the point that it may not be fallacious.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
3. They're different types of fallacies, but both fallacies. They're categorized in order to group them by what kind of fallacy they are. (To whit, formal fallacies have to do with the reasoning structure; the FORM of the argument.)
Let me say it again; circular reasoning isn't circular causality. Your argument isn't circular, and I must admit, I have no idea why you even mentioned circular reasoning in the first place.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. The reason I brought up circularity was to show that a naturalistic worldview -that is, to look for a natural reason for the explanation of the universe -is invalid and not possible. And that's what it seems you were getting at with your recursive loop, which like I've also said countless times, even if I granted, would eventually die out because of entropy. Un-entropization (yes I made that up) necessitates a higher realm -there's no getting out of that.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
3. Telling me that circular reasoning is valid in no way makes the claim that a naturalistic explanation of the universe is invalid. You're trying to change the subject.
The temporal loop has nothing to do with circular reasoning. It also doesn't have entropy problems. I tried to explain that one, but you're having trouble with it...
Un-entropization doesn't require a higher realm, it requires a big crunch. A big crunch needs only negative acceleration of space-time expansion.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. RIP
Sarcasm FTW.
Oh it's pride is it? Somehow it always does come down to this, satan you little de...anyways. Well, what if you accidentally murdered someone? How would you ever live with yourself? Or if you wrecked something that was irreplaceable?
Yup, definitely pride.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
2. If I murdered someone accidentally, I'd be sad. It is, however, an accident, and accidents happen. If I wrecked something irreplaceable on accident, I'd probably be a bit less sad, because I tend to value lives more than things.
How does any of that have anything to do with pride?
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. Oh so you just go on living your life? Too bad so sad sort of deal? Of course you're going to say no here, but that is essentially what you would do, so don't try and deny it. And what if it happened to you? No chance at recovery?
Because someone is offering you a way out of this scenario and you don't want to take it because of this stupid idea that it will impinge on your free will when on naturalism you are FORCED to conclude determinism. How do you like dem apples?
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS 2. Yes, although a bit more sympathetically then you describe.
What am I supposed to do, kill myself over an accident?
If I were killed by accident, I'd be dead. Where were you going with that?
Anyway, yeah. I agree that my free will is a product of my temperment, and the conditions of my life. That doesn't mean that I'll abandon that for the first omnipotent tyrant that comes along.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 2. From a brute facts perspective, I described the scenario exactly right since sympathy is the subjective journey (of remorse, guilt, shame, etc.) you take -the fact that you take the journey and end up with NO answer is indisputable though.
I don't know? Maybe?
I meant what if you were permanently disfigured -just throw the concept of fairness out the window and deal with it?
The only reason you don't believe in God is because you caricature Him -I don't worship Satan.
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
2. The answer I end up with is "accidents happen." It's very sad that he died, sadder to me personally if I was involved with that death. Even so, it was an accident, they do happen.
Why would I kill myself over an accident? That seems extreme...
Permanently disfigured? Strikes me as somewhat better than being dead. Yep, fairness will never exist. I'd have to deal.
How is Satan an omnipotent tyrant? I thought he was the trickster, who seduces people into joining him?
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Yes it does because a naturalistic explanation of the universe is NECESSARILY circular.
How doesn't it have entropy problems? You just define it as such, however, you have no way of backing this up. So, I'll continue to have problems with it thank you very much.
Wouldn't the expansion be less the second time around because of entropy? And so the big crunch will require less energy? And the next expansion even smaller, until finally it just stops. Dang I just dispro...
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
3. No it isn't. Case in point, the singularity bridging an infinite time length, and the oscillating bang/crunch model. Time loop isn't the only model.
No. Because space time itself collapses to a single point, all the energy that WAS useless is gathered back up. Like I said, the big crunch literally reverses entropy in a very rapid manner.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Nothing new to address here.
A big crunch doesn't reverse entropy. You just define it that way. And you still didn't answer the expansionary retractionary phases don't become smaller and smaller until those eventually stop. When you bounce a ball, eventually it stops bouncing -same concept with the fluctuating model.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
3. A big crunch does reverse entropy. You just don't understand how it works. I'll try one more time.
By collapsing all of space-time into one point, all matter is crushed down, and converted back into energy. All of the energy leaked into the void between matter is crushed back together. Entropy is LITERALLY reversed in the process of the collapse.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight 3. Yea, you don't understand how it works either, you just assert it does.
How can entropy be reversed? If it's reversed then it was never entropy. If you're talking about the entropy within the expanding universe maybe, but what about the entropy involved in the very system of expansion and collapse that the universe goes through?
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
3. The universe is presently expanding at a slightly accelerating rate. If the universe required energy to expand, it would be creating energy like mad, which is a massive violation of conservation of energy.
In simple terms, space time =/= energy. Entropy simply isn't involved with the universe's expansion.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
As to your "bouncing ball," no. The ball stops bouncing due to air friction, and slight adhesion to the ground. We're not aware of a force that stops the expansion/contraction of space-time, nor are we aware of an energy actually required.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight My bouncing ball was just an illustration to try and get across what I was thinking, not an actual analogy.
And what's the force that starts expansion/contraction then?
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
No, I got your point. Energy is lost over time when you bounce a ball; that's a good analogy for entropy.
As I said earlier, though, the expansion/contraction of space-time neither consumes nor releases energy. It merely changes the distribution of energy and mass within it.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
As for a force that starts the expansion of the universe, I don't know. In order to figure that out, we need to look at a pre-big bang universe. Several ideas are about, but they have to be tested, as no evidence supports any of them.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Yea, I'm not going to reply to you. Take this as an admission of defeat, but I honestly don't care about talking with you anymore.
I understand why you utterly HAVE to respond though because unless you keep plugging up the holes in your leaking ship, eventually the whole thing's going to go down. Here's my piece of advice though: Get a new damn ship.
Cheerio.
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
Physician, heal thyself.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight A loop is not an infinite regression, it's just a circle. So it doesn't regress anywhere, it just goes on infinitely within itself.
And this loop cannot exist within the universe because, how I already pointed out, of the law of entropy.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS It's infinite in the sense of recursion. Maybe that would be a better term; infinite recursion.
A temporal loop COULD exist, because entropy has nothing to do with temporal loops.
I think you're thinking of the oscillating model of the universe, in which case, since the universe collapses periodically in that model, entropy is essentially reversed in the big crunch.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight ...? I already went over that...
No, eventually the loop would slow down and sputter out in a whimper.
4. Eh, I know enough. I think I do actually, it begins with an a and ends with theism. Or do you prefer the word skepticism? Either way, I know your position better than you do, since you'd probably be hard-pressed to even define it.
Here's my clue to what the clue is: Hey Zeus.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
Yeahno. Entropy doesn't apply to a temporal loop. Consider the following thought experiment:
Humans somehow develop a machine that can create a universe. We put it in a time machine, throw it into the past, and create our own universe. What effect does this have on entropy? None whatsoever.
As for the big crunch, no. The big crunch LITERALLY reverses entropy. It breaks matter into energy, gathers it into one spot, etc.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Haha, the problem is with your thought experiment. Your supposition will NEVER happen; of course if we could make such a machine then entropy wouldn't exist -that's the whole dilemma. You can' make an entropic-free machine out of entropy-laden parts... -_-
So unless you invoke a supernatural realm free of entropy in which to build your machine -your whole thought experiment falls apart.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
It's a hypothetical scenario used to illustrate a concept. By attacking the stipulations of the hypothetical, you're being facetious again.
Yes, if it'll make you happy, let's say people fly a time machine to a supernatural realm of magic and unicorn farts, build their universe generating machine, and fly back in time, and create their own universe.
Can you see, then, how the universe's entropy wouldn't decay with each iteration of the loop?
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight No, you're just mad that it was so easy for me to obliterate your half-baked thought experiment.
Cool, then it could happen. But I don't see why you need unicorn farts -oh wait, you're trying to reduce my position absurdity since you can't actually cogently argue against it. You're too smart for me bro. :(
No, I don't see that at ALL.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
No, a thought experiment requires you to make assumptions. That's why it's called a "thought experiment;" it's not a real life scenario, it's entirely hypothetical.
Actually, I said "unicorn farts" because when people get facetious, I get sarcastic. Ok, assuming the assistance of a magical realm ENTIRELY DEVOID OF UNICORN FARTS, would you see that the entropy of the universe is not reduced with each iteration of the temporal loop?
I can't make it any simpler.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Sorry but your assumption invokes a supernatural realm. The intrinsic nature of your suppositions make the supernatural necessary before you can even begin speaking.
None of my arguments so far have been facetious in the slightest -or do you still think actual infinities exist lol? ...citing my facetiousness. -_-
Yes, but then you've already admitted to the 'magical realm' which is what you were trying to get rid of haha.
You don't have to -you just have to make sense.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
Oh good grief. I don't think you actually know what facetious means.
For the record, in this context, it means "concerned with details that are trivial."
You haven't examined the concept being explained in the thought experiment, instead locking on to a stipulation that you think proves your point. I'm actually inclined to think you're trolling now.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, but the thing is that you're trivializing matters that are of significant importance just so you can label them facetious and then think you're justified in not dealing with them. I have a surprise for you: you haven't dealt with them -not even in the slightest.
Lol, that stipulation DOES prove my point. I've been trolling very mildly for some time now, just because of how ignorant some of the things you say are. :P
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
Actually, because those things are stipulations to a hypothetical situation, and I admitted that, they become trivial. The fact that one of them is what you're trying to prove was entirely irrelevant to the concept that my thought experiment was supposed to get across to you. I thought if I conceded it, you'd make more of an effort to understand what I was trying to get across.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight No they don't, because they are an integral part of the thought experiment. And if you wish for that thought experiment to have any bearing in reality then they are very important. Only if you don't are they trivial. But then I must ask why you cam up with the thought experiment in the first place since it does nothing to help your case?
What were you trying to get across? Sorry, I'll try to pay better attention this time around.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
I was trying to get across the lack of effect that a temporal loop has on entropy.
Here's the thought experiment: Some guys use a time machine, go back in time, and use inexplicable technology/magic/whatever the hell you want them to to create the universe that they themselves came from in their time machine.
As you can see, this timeline makes a loop. Does the entropy of the universe run down with each iteration of the loop?
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight There you go, you just shot yourself in the foot -INEXPLICABLE techonology aka NOT natural.
YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
I think we're just going to forget about the thought experiment. You said you'd try to think about it, about the point that I'm trying to get across to you, and I'm just not seeing it. Either you like trolling too much, or you genuinely don't understand what's being presented to you.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight I asked you to re-present the thought experiment, and you accuse me of not trying to understand? Lol, the way I did understand it the first time I think was correct, and that's why I asked you to present it again, because I must have missed something. But I don't think I did, and you're mad that it doesn't pass muster under scrutiny so of course you say I don't understand it. I can say that about you too... -_-
You need to tell me where I'm wrong and WHY.
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
I did repeat the thought experiment. For the second time, instead of looking at the concept being illustrated, you latched onto an irrelevant detail. Attacking the stipulation of a thought experiment isn't "scrutiny," it's a refusal to partake in the thought experiment.
You are wrong because you're supposed to be looking at the effects of a temporal loop on entropy in this model; you did not, either time, look at the entropy.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@M3PanoS So, you define me by what I don't believe in, do you?
So what do I call you, a non-Buddhist?
Ok, so your clue to the clue is Jesus.
Um... yeah. Decent character, many words put into his mouth by his disciples...
Why's he relevant? Don't say he was prophecised in the bible, ergo the bible is true. Please don't. So many people say that, and it's always disappointing.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Yea, but only because this belief is pertinent to everyone.
You can do that, but I don't care since Buddhism isn't pertinent to truth.
Yup. :D
Oh yea, why's that? Why don't you let me know why I can't say any of those things? You've already debunked them or something lol? Or what about the resurrection -you already debunked that too?
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
Actually, theism wouldn't be pertinent to Buddhists. They're technically athiests, and tend to live in Buddhist regions.
...
Please. Please tell me you're kidding. Please tell me you aren't trying to prove that the bible is true because a prophecy about a character in the bible came true in the bible.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
If it really is your intent to prove that the bible is right because a character in the bible was prophecised to do several things, and he did those things, one of which was dying and coming back to life, I will, as you did, give you a hint as to why that argument fails.
That hint is this:
Harry Potter.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Yes! Harry Potter, I know the answer to this one!!! >_<
The Harry Potter series is an intentionally and explicitly fictional work that makes no claims on the real world. None of the characters or places therein actually exists in the real world, and thus I have no idea why you would take it as non-fiction.
However, the characters and places within the Bible have actually existed in the real world and as such the claims of the Bible are pertinent to the real world.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
I will not dispute that Harry Potter is non-fiction. I'm just saying, internally fulfilled prophecies and resurrections mentioned in a book, do not make it a work of non-fiction.
So, you actually introduce a new argument here. There are actually people and places in the bible that existed. True.
However, the same is true of the book "Johnny Tremain." That's a work of historical fiction.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Uh, but historical accounts do lol. That's the key point you're missing. And the other key point is that the Bible isn't just one book -it's 60.
Thank you. Now evaluate those claims. I can't possibly see how this is the first you've heard of this though unless you willingly took everything ass-backward when talking to people -or just avoided it all together.
It's not historical fiction -it's historical account. Maybe that's why archaeological digs confirm it.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
A. Josephus is hearsay, and the Tacitus account is widely considered a forgery; it's not in his usual style of writing, lasts a single paragraph, and is never mentioned again.
B. It's a compilation. Irrelevant.
C. Archaeological digs would confirm Johnny Tremain, if we had to dig. (Many of the characters and events in the book are real; that's what historical fiction means. It's a fictitious account of a real story.)
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight A. Doesn't matter. The church fathers never used Josephus or Tacitus in early church history because the evidence of Jesus was so abundant as to not have to bring in such outlandish sources into the picture. Only reason it's done in recent scholarship is because of the pervasive nature of Christ-mythicists who demand secular accounts -of which there are many others by the way.
B. Wholly relevant since in order to disprove the Bible you'd have to disprove each separate book.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
A. Uh huh. What other secular sources you got?
B. I'm not out to disprove the bible. I'm challenging IT to prove itself. I could challenge you to prove each of those 60 books, but I won't. One will work.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight A. christianthinktank(dot)com/topix(dot)html Knock yourself out.
B. Then by definition you have to disprove it since there's a dichotomy here: it's either true or it's not. I affirm that the Bible has proven itself based on my evaluation. Now disprove it. Fine, disprove one.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
A. Long list, word secular never appears. "Non-christian sources" only yields info on messianic expectations, which I don't care about.
B. The fact that you say the bible is true does not prove the bible. Challenging me to disprove it is shifting the burden of proof. I make no claim that it is false, however I will continue to be skeptical until it is proven true.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight A. Sorry that I can't give you an example of the word secular appearing in the first century AD when that word didn't even originate until 1250 AD. :(
Non-Christian sources are actually just as good if not better than secular sources because non-Christians had an agenda of trying to debunk Christianity -much like you do today.
B. Suit yourself, but then you haven't actually evaluated it. Whenever I say 'prophecy' you cringe, but you haven't even looked at them lol.
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
A. Um... maybe you weren't paying attention. The "non secular sources" discussed messianic EXPECTATIONS, not experiences.
B. First of all, internally made and fulfilled prophecies, such as Jesus' first coming, don't prove anything, to whit, harry potter.
Second, externally fulfilled prophecies may be self fulfilling, to whit, the consensus among allied christian nations at the end of WWII to make Israel happen.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight C. No they wouldn't. They would confirm the events alluded to within Johnny Tremain -not the story of Johnny Tremain himself. However, the types of documents we're dealing with aren't even works of historical fiction -they are first hand eyewitness accounts and are thus the types of accounts that are used to re-create what the event must have been like in the first place.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
C. You're bordering on the facetious, again.
Just for that, let's see some evidence that Jesus not only existed, but had a supernatural power.
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight C. Dude, every time my argument becomes a little bit too complex for you, you just dismiss it as being facetious. No wonder, I can't get through to you, you're committed to a shallow methodology for evaluating these claims that bars you from truly critically thinking about the topics and affords you the privilege of keeping your old views.
The New Testament -dur, duh, dur.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
No, I call you that when you miss the point of what I said, and fixate on an irrelevant detail.
You're relying the biblic accounts, to provide your eyewitnesses. Really. That would be like using the characters from Johnny Tremain as eyewitnesses to Tremain's existence. It's circular reasoning, but then, you think circular reasoning is valid, don't you?
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight Uh, I don't think you're getting it. Forget the word Bible. "The Bible" wasn't even compiled until centuries after the life of Jesus. All we had were the eyewitness accounts of the disciples and a scattered collection of different documents pertaining to Christian thought.
Not circular. Johnny Tremain is a fictional character. The Bible talks about actual historical events. How am I supposed to get this in your head when you have a pre-commitment against believing it?
M3PanoS 3 months ago
@M3PanoS
If you want to forget the blanket term "the bible," that's fine. In that case, we're putting all of the "eyewitness testimonies" from the disciples to the test, so they STILL can't be admitted as evidence to prove themselves right.
I have no pre-commitments; I have skepticism. I suggest reading "The Lost World" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I need evidence; show me, and I will believe. Until then, Jesus is just as real to me as Johnny Tremain.
PrometheusWithLight 3 months ago
@PrometheusWithLight C. Continued
Take the Civil War for example -if you were to try to differentiate between what really happened with what is embellishment, then you'd have to evaluate competing sources for their veracity. What comes at the top? Eyewitness accounts -exactly the type of accounts we have for Jesus' life. So when you're looking to see if Johnny Tremain's story is real, you place it against the type of accounts I'm saying were used to testify for Jesus' life.
M3PanoS 4 months ago
@M3PanoS
Actually, Johnny Tremain isn't contradicted by most eyewitness accounts. Oh, and by the way, the bible is the book that we're trying to determine whether it's real or not, so I really hope those "eyewitness accounts" you mention aren't named "mark," "John," and "Paul."
PrometheusWithLight 4 months ago