Origins of the universe....Part II

[Diceman Cometh]

I was having this discussion on a philosophy message board and I was wondering if any WBers have anything to say about this...

After becoming an atheist, I have always been looking for good arguments for Theism. Well, I haven't found even ONE decent argument...until last week. I was listening to a debate between philosopher William Lane Craig and another philosopher (forgot his name) at Univ. of California in Fresno. Well this man is fucking brilliant. I won't get into EVERYTHING that he talked about, but the FIRST part of his argument got me thinking about a question I haven't asked myself in a long time: where did the universe come from?

In his argument for the existance of God, he first lays the foundations of his argument by refuting the possibility of an infinite (or infinitely old) universe, and talks about what kind of a cause could have possibly caused the universe to exist. It starts off like this (very rough sketch of his argument):

1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist - therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing.

Premise 2 is based on:

a) the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things.

Therefore,

- An actually inifinite number of things cannot exist.
- A beginingless universe involves an actually infinite number of past things.
- Therefore, a beginingless universe cannot exist.

and...

b) The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory, which points to the fact that the universe "burst into existence" at a specific point in the past.

and...

c) The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system moves towards states of higher entropy, which means that all matter in the universe will eventually fizzle into nothing, which in turn means that the matter in the universe has a finite "life-span," and could not have existed forever.


...Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Such a transcendent Cause must possess a number of properties:

1) As the cause of Space and Time, this cause must transcend Space and Time, and therefore exist non-temporally and non-spacially.
2) This cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since something can be Timeless only if it is unchanging....and something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial.

The third property of this Cause, according to Craig, is that it must be personal, and he states why. But I will not go into that now.

Well, needless to say, I've been racking my mind over this for the last few days, and wanted the thoughts of others here.


So...where the hell did the Universe come from?

Comments?


Here is a link to the debate...it's absolutely fascinating....

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/147

[Beeman99]

I was having this discussion on a philosophy message board and I was wondering if any WBers have anything to say about this...

After becoming an atheist, I have always been looking for good arguments for Theism. Well, I haven't found even ONE decent argument...until last week. I was listening to a debate between philosopher William Lane Craig and another philosopher (forgot his name) at Univ. of California in Fresno. Well this man is fucking brilliant. I won't get into EVERYTHING that he talked about, but the FIRST part of his argument got me thinking about a question I haven't asked myself in a long time: where did the universe come from?

In his argument for the existance of God, he first lays the foundations of his argument by refuting the possibility of an infinite (or infinitely old) universe, and talks about what kind of a cause could have possibly caused the universe to exist. It starts off like this (very rough sketch of his argument):

1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist - therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing.

Premise 2 is based on:

a) the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things.

Therefore,

- An actually inifinite number of things cannot exist.
- A beginingless universe involves an actually infinite number of past things.
- Therefore, a beginingless universe cannot exist.

and...

b) The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory, which points to the fact that the universe "burst into existence" at a specific point in the past.

and...

c) The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system moves towards states of higher entropy, which means that all matter in the universe will eventually fizzle into nothing, which in turn means that the matter in the universe has a finite "life-span," and could not have existed forever.


...Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Such a transcendent Cause must possess a number of properties:

1) As the cause of Space and Time, this cause must transcend Space and Time, and therefore exist non-temporally and non-spacially.
2) This cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since something can be Timeless only if it is unchanging....and something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial.

The third property of this Cause, according to Craig, is that it must be personal, and he states why. But I will not go into that now.

Well, needless to say, I've been racking my mind over this for the last few days, and wanted the thoughts of others here.


So...where the hell did the Universe come from?

Comments?


Here is a link to the debate...it's absolutely fascinating....

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/147



ow, that made my brain work, and now it is hurting. Way too deep for me right now, it's 82F here right now and my brain is cooked from the heat. It sounds like one of those debates that if you put any drug into your body it'd make perfect sense.

[turdfrgsn]

I was having this discussion on a philosophy message board and I was wondering if any WBers have anything to say about this...

After becoming an atheist, I have always been looking for good arguments for Theism. Well, I haven't found even ONE decent argument...until last week. I was listening to a debate between philosopher William Lane Craig and another philosopher (forgot his name) at Univ. of California in Fresno. Well this man is fucking brilliant. I won't get into EVERYTHING that he talked about, but the FIRST part of his argument got me thinking about a question I haven't asked myself in a long time: where did the universe come from?

In his argument for the existance of God, he first lays the foundations of his argument by refuting the possibility of an infinite (or infinitely old) universe, and talks about what kind of a cause could have possibly caused the universe to exist. It starts off like this (very rough sketch of his argument):

1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist - therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise 1 is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing.

Premise 2 is based on:

a) the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things.

Therefore,

- An actually inifinite number of things cannot exist.
- A beginingless universe involves an actually infinite number of past things.
- Therefore, a beginingless universe cannot exist.

and...

b) The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory, which points to the fact that the universe "burst into existence" at a specific point in the past.

and...

c) The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system moves towards states of higher entropy, which means that all matter in the universe will eventually fizzle into nothing, which in turn means that the matter in the universe has a finite "life-span," and could not have existed forever.


...Therefore, the universe has a cause.


Such a transcendent Cause must possess a number of properties:

1) As the cause of Space and Time, this cause must transcend Space and Time, and therefore exist non-temporally and non-spacially.
2) This cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since something can be Timeless only if it is unchanging....and something can be unchanging only if it is immaterial.

The third property of this Cause, according to Craig, is that it must be personal, and he states why. But I will not go into that now.

Well, needless to say, I've been racking my mind over this for the last few days, and wanted the thoughts of others here.


So...where the hell did the Universe come from?

Comments?


Here is a link to the debate...it's absolutely fascinating....

http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/147

aight, cool

i'll take a 1/4 oz.........you do mail order?

[jpc165]

we, including the smart guy who came up with that arguement, are too stupid still to understand the true beginning or source of the universe/multi-verse.

the human race inself could be wiped off the planet before the truth is discovered. it stinks and i dont like it.

and you just cant simply refute the possiblity that the universe is infinite and never had a beginning.

[joshjrounder]

The argument he poses does seem, on the surface at least, to be a pretty valid argument. All of his statements relating to physics are correct. But the conclusion which is drawn from his argument is one of many. While it is true that something must have caused the Big Bang, that does not mean that it must have been a God. There is currently a hot topic in the field of theoretical physics called String Theory. This theory, while unproven and purely hypothetical, suggests the existance of 11 dimensions instead of the typical 4 that we currently believe we reside in. Without going into to much detail, if this is someday proven to be true, it would suggest that there are things so small that we cannot currently see them with todays' technology. This could mean that whatever it was that initiated the Big Bang is just not currently visible in the universe we live in.

[Beeman99]

k, here it is, aliens came here and dropped us off, then another alien being took over the souls of those original beings, now there is a war going on among us to rid those second aliens.

[fothermucker]

1) Whatever begins to exist, has a cause.

Premise 1 is rooted in the metaphysical truth that something cannot come from nothing. This is a leap of logic and presumption whereby he fills in God as the answer. This is not necessarily a metaphysical truth...read Heidegger. One can believe that something comes into existence (as in the very first time, i.e. life) without a cause, as much as one can believe that there is a hidden cause for it.

a) the impossibility of an actually infinite number of things. I don't get this one. How is the infinite impossible? An infinite number of things in existence is impossible of course, but the universe may very well be infinite in essence and completely resistant to the constraints of time that he is trying to place on it. If it is infinite, i.e. a "sea" of all possibile possibilities in every possible form and relation to every other infinite possibility, then the terms "beginning", "meaning", "end", "cause", "origin", mean nothing. It's like a distant horizon that never ends in any direction and our only orientation is where we stand, relative to ourselves and nowhere else. The universe, in this sense, would follow his causaution guidelines. It would have to transcend being and the finite, in which case it would be infinite.

b) The expansion of the universe and the Big Bang theory, which points to the fact that the universe "burst into existence" at a specific point in the past.

and...

c) The 2nd law of thermodynamics, which states that a closed system moves towards states of higher entropy, which means that all matter in the universe will eventually fizzle into nothing, which in turn means that the matter in the universe has a finite "life-span," and could not have existed forever. Applying this to the entire universe is another presumption. There is also the possibility the the universe is cyclical, and we're just one cycle of an innumerable, possibly infinite system. Some astrophysicists believe that the universe will eventually collapse onto itself, which would lead to another opportunity for a Big Bang.

I love discussions like this because these are the fundamental, unanswerable questions that stalk us. This is the key to our existence and it's something that the greatest minds in history have spent their lives poring over unsuccessfully. Although I'm not a PhD student and couldn't hold my own in a discussion with him face to face, I view what he says as him filling in blanks with presumptions that lead to God. In this case however, one can counter that equally with a polar opposite view.

[Diceman Cometh]

and you just cant simply refute the possiblity that the universe is infinite and never had a beginning.

If the concept of an infinitely old universe can be shown to defy the laws of physics and logic, then you most certainly can.

[Diceman Cometh]

This is a leap of logic and presumption whereby he fills in God as the answer.

As I said, I left out the part where he tries to present a logical case for why the universe must have been created by what he called an "un-embodied mind." He didn't just plop the God theory on the table like that.

I left a great deal of his detailed argument out of my original post...if you have 15 minutes to spare, just listen to his opening argument in the mp3 link I gave. I promise you, you will not be able to stop listening.

This is not necessarily a metaphysical truth...read Heidegger. One can believe that something comes into existence (as in the very first time, i.e. life) without a cause, as much as one can believe that there is a hidden cause for it.

Why do you say that life has no cause? Life came into existence through chemical reactions - isn't the chemical reaction that occured in Earth's oceans 3.5 Billion years ago the cause for the occurance of life? What other example can you provide in which something can occur without a cause?

I don't get this one. How is the infinite impossible? An infinite number of things in existence is impossible of course, but the universe may very well be infinite in essence and completely resistant to the constraints of time that he is trying to place on it. If it is infinite, i.e. a "sea" of all possibile possibilities in every possible form and relation to every other infinite possibility, then the terms "beginning", "meaning", "end", "cause", "origin", mean nothing. It's like a distant horizon that never ends in any direction and our only orientation is where we stand, relative to ourselves and nowhere else. The universe, in this sense, would follow his causaution guidelines. It would have to transcend being and the finite, in which case it would be infinite.

Again, he went into great detail in explaining why an infinitely old universe is impossible. For example, he explains why an infinite number of events or things would lead to certain mathematical absurdities.

Applying this to the entire universe is another presumption. There is also the possibility the the universe is cyclical, and we're just one cycle of an innumerable, possibly infinite system. Some astrophysicists believe that the universe will eventually collapse onto itself, which would lead to another opportunity for a Big Bang.

From what I have read, the "Cycle" theory has largely been abandoned by scientists. The universe is expanding at an INCREASING rate - the galaxies are moving away from each other at an ever faster rate, not a slower one. The Cycle theory requires that the universe's expansion slow to a crawl, eventually stop, then begin to contract faster and faster to a singularity. Once scientists saw that the OPPOSITE is happening, the theory has been largely abandoned.

Also, if the universe, as a single, closed system, keeps expanding and contracting, the laws of thermodynamics would still apply to it, and it would still move toward entropy. So an infinitely old universe should have fizzled away into blackness before now, or before any given point in time for that matter.

Lastly, I believe that, if you take such a theory as a given (that the Big Bang and Big Crunch are cyclical), this still does not explain where, when, why, and how this cycle formed in the first place. Why does the cycle even exist?

Again, my explanations are childish compared to William Lane Craig's, so I urge anyone interested in this stuff (and anyone interested in getting mind-fucked) listen to the mp3, at least the first few minutes.

[Cunt Smasher]

Poked around this a little after reading posts...
http://www.everythingforever.com/

[Harvey_Birdman]

If nothing is infinite then where the fuck did god come from?

It's the whole "tortoises all the way down" nonsense argument all over again.

[Diceman Cometh]

If nothing is infinite then where the fuck did god come from?

It's the whole "tortoises all the way down" nonsense argument all over again.

Well, Craig has an interesting answer to that.

He says that such a question is like asking "why are there no married bachelors?" A bachelor, by definition, cannot be married. And the being that created the universe (and Space-Time itself) is non-temporal (outside of time), non-spatial, and immaterial. Such a being, by definition, is timeless, changeless, and without causation. So asking where God came from is like asking someone to draw a circular square - it's simply illogical.

[grail]

..Also, if the universe, as a single, closed system, keeps expanding and contracting, the laws of thermodynamics would still apply to it, and it would still move toward entropy. So an infinitely old universe should have fizzled away into blackness before now, or before any given point in time for that matter.

Lastly, I believe that, if you take such a theory as a given (that the Big Bang and Big Crunch are cyclical), this still does not explain where, when, why, and how this cycle formed in the first place. Why does the cycle even exist?

QUOTE]


First the law of conservation of matter... matter cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only changes forms. This includes changing into energy.
Therefore one of the assumptions the argument is making the universe is a closed thermodynamic system. This I don't think we can assume at this time. Our point of reference is too small as well as the amount of data that is available to us from this reference point. Space as we know it at this point is expanding and contracting at different rates as if it were an open thermodynamic system. Where it ends and begins cannot be simply measured at this time. What we are able to measure is by doing observations from our single point in space/time so our view is a bit flawed however it repeatable and reproducable. Therefore it stands up against scientific scrutiny. The professor making the argument is quite adept at debate, but that doesn't mean he is necessarily right. My thought is this we don't know where the universe began or will end, and we may not know in our lifetimes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't quit asking, looking, and measuring. The universe just is, I think we are all still working on the why and how.


"What science cannot explain therein lies belief"... (Sorry don't remember who said it)

[fothermucker]

Why do you say that life has no cause? Life came into existence through chemical reactions - isn't the chemical reaction that occured in Earth's oceans 3.5 Billion years ago the cause for the occurance of life? What other example can you provide in which something can occur without a cause? I meant a cause as in a reason for its making. Maybe there is no logical reason why there is life rather than why there is nothing. The causation for the existence of life and all things, at its root, may not be caused by anything; by a God, etc. But asking me what else could be is asking something that we cannot answer, but just because we can't at this time make a logical jump to an answer doesn't mean that it must be a god behind it all.

From what I have read, the "Cycle" theory has largely been abandoned by scientists. The universe is expanding at an INCREASING rate - the galaxies are moving away from each other at an ever faster rate, not a slower one. The Cycle theory requires that the universe's expansion slow to a crawl, eventually stop, then begin to contract faster and faster to a singularity. Once scientists saw that the OPPOSITE is happening, the theory has been largely abandoned. Grail goes into some of this in his last post. But there is also a shit ton we don't know about regarding the universe. Dark matter is the big thing, and it may very well be the monkey wrench in the whole expanding theory. Logically at this point, the universe would expand into nothingness, but even there that is lending faith onto a system that may not be closed and may have forces that change the laws we observe on earth. I am way over my head with this astrophysics and I probably know as much as the next guy who reads Popular Science occasionally. But astrophysics is one of, if not the, frontier science of all sciences. In the next few decades, discoveries will be made that shed much more light on what the universe might do in billions of years.

Lastly, I believe that, if you take such a theory as a given (that the Big Bang and Big Crunch are cyclical), this still does not explain where, when, why, and how this cycle formed in the first place. Why does the cycle even exist? This may be like asking someone to draw a square circle. The answer may never be discovered, or even discoverable. Instead of God behind the void, the void may just be. The idea of filling this immense gap in all meaning and logic with a transcendent being is an attempt to, with our current knowledge and scientific ability, make sense to the fundamental nature of being that may simply be senseless. There very well may be no reason. It's pretty fucking scary if you think about it. It's a perspective that people will (and have) spend their lives trying to disprove. It's also the front edge of all philosophy and some of the most interesting stuff written deals with this.

[Sunsetspawn]

And they say Opie and Anthony are like Stern MINUS the intelligence.


Okay, I don't really have the time to start philosophizin' with all you niggas, but I'll try to insert my two cents.

If nothing is infinite then what about the densities of singularities? A good answer would be that we don't understand nearly enough about physics, but more importantly, the same can be said about the universe. A black hole's density may APPEAR infinite to us cavemen, but perhaps it has volume after all, extending into some extra spatial dimension that gravity has a smaller effect on. Wah wah penis. The point is, we really do know NOTHING, so how can we possibly start contemplating the origins of the feces... er universe.

And another thing, and I think someone else touched on this, if there is a god then I'll be god damned if any of our organized, bloodthirsty, insane, ritualistic, arrogant religions have hit anywhere near the mark as to what it's nature is. That's right, "IT." If anything, the Buddists have it right. Just be good and don't bother thinking about god, because you'd never understand god anyway.

I'm out...

like a fat girl in dodgeball

[fothermucker]

And another thing, and I think someone else touched on this, if there is a god then I'll be god damned if any of our organized, bloodthirsty, insane, ritualistic, arrogant religions have hit anywhere near the mark as to what it's nature is. That's right, "IT." If anything, the Buddists have it right. Just be good and don't bother thinking about god, because you'd never understand god anyway.
good point. I chuckle sometimes thinking about how people today view God as a benevolent, wise person in a white robe. If he really was a God in the full sense that we know it in philosophy, he would transcend everything that means to be human...he (used loosely for discussion, gender wouldn't apply) wouldn't even be able to have empathy with us because he wouldn't be able to resemble anything near what it means to be "human". He would have to be perfect. That's something to meditate on, what it would truly mean to be perfect in every way, and what that being would become. The true nature of perfect being is a distant, cold, and frightening thing.

[jpc165]

gods a cunt

fuck him and the faggot jesus at the same time

our understanding of physics will have to change in order to explain how our universe started. then there's the multiverse approach..

[Diceman Cometh]

just because we can't at this time make a logical jump to an answer doesn't mean that it must be a god behind it all.....The idea of filling this immense gap in all meaning and logic with a transcendent being is an attempt to, with our current knowledge and scientific ability, make sense to the fundamental nature of being that may simply be senseless.

You are making the assumption that Craig is just popping the "God" theory out of his ass as "filler" for the unknown. He in fact tries to make the argument that the cause of the universe must have come from an "unembodied mind," and he arrives at this conclusion with multiple logical steps.

If you are interested in hearing his explanation for why logic dictates that a personal and unembodied mind must have caused the universe, once again I urge you to listen to the mp3...the part that I am particularly referring to is at the 13 min. & 46 sec. part of the mp3. It ends at about 16 min. and 20 sec. Less than three minutes. Here's the link: http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/147

Once you listen to it, try to counter his argument as directly and clearly as you possibly can.

[Budyzir]

Nutz, way too much reading after two bourbons.

BTW, which came first, the chicken or the egg? :action-sm

[jpc165]

the dude can argue god created our universe, but can he argue his existence today. where is the motherfucker now???

and the problem still remains. saying god started "our" universe, does not solve the problem. where the fuck did god come from then?

oh but thats right you dont need logic or reason to answer that one when you're talking about magical fairy tales and fucking easter bunnys.

do you not see the problem there? he uses logic and physics to deduct that something with no relation to logic and physics started it all back in the day. pretty fucking ridiculous.

[Diceman Cometh]

where the fuck did god come from then? ...


I posted Craig's response to that very same question - did you bother reading it?

You can disagree with him, but don't belittle his arguments by saying he doesn't use any logic in them. He uses logic unbelievably well, and he has baffled atheists FAR smarter than you or I will ever be. See if you can address his logic point by point.

[Diceman Cometh]

do you not see the problem there? he uses logic and physics to deduct that something with no relation to logic and physics started it all back in the day. pretty fucking ridiculous.

Quantum physicists also work with theories that have no relation to, and in fact often contradict, conventional physics. And many of the theories put forth by astro-physicists and cosmologists dealing with the origins of the universe are also outside the realm of conventional physics. The singularity that physicists say existed before the Big Bang also defies the laws of physics.

EDIT: Holy shit, 2,000 posts!

[TrybalRage]

gods a cunt

fuck him and the faggot jesus at the same time

Well there is certainly an open minded, well thought out argument that is sure to open you up to deep thoughts regarding the origin of all things.

Fuck science. Science is a cunt. Fuck science and anyone who studies our physical existence is a faggot.

Gee, I feel better already.

On another note, how can one properly date something when all matter came into existence at the same time?

[Cunt Smasher]

This makes sense,sorta,I wish I was smarter.

The Infinite Universe of Einstein and Newton

Authors Barry Bruce
Publication date June 1, 2003
Pages 116
Binding Paperback
Book category Adult Non-Fiction
ISBN 1581124104
Dimensions 0.50 by 6 by 8.75 in.


Weight 0.40 lbs.
Subjects
Cosmology.
Gravity.
Red shift.
Science - General
Amazon.com editorial descriptions of this work:
Book Description: After developing his Law of Gravitation, Newton came to believe that the Universe was infinite and homogeneous on a large scale. Einstein's original intuition was similar to Newton's in that he thought our Universe was static, infinite, isotropic and homogeneous. The field equations of Einstein's general relativity are solved for this universe. One of the three solutions found, the "infinite closed universe", traps light within a finite portion of the universe. This infinite closed universe model is shown to fit all the data of the Hubble diagram better than the Big Bang, and it fits the recent supernova data without having to postulate mysterious dark energy. Using general relativity and the physics which evolved from Newton, the author finds the force of gravity between two point particles. Utilizing this force and the infinite closed universe model, the net force of gravity on a point particle, in arbitrary motion, due to the uniform mass distribution of the universe is calculated by an integration. This net force of gravity is found to be equal to the force of inertia. These calculations explain Newton's First Law, Newton's Second Law, and the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. In addition, by the extension of Einstein's general relativity to two-body interactions Newton's Third Law is elicited. These results show that the cosmological redshift and the physics that we know are likely the result of the uniform mass distribution of our infinite closed universe and gravity alone.

[fothermucker]

Once you listen to it, try to counter his argument as directly and clearly as you possibly can.
Ok I'll try to refute a skilled doctor of philosophy who has crafted an argument for years even though I'm an undergraduate who takes philosophy for fun. You're looking for a smoking gun when none exists on either side of the debate. If you're looking for a destruction of his ideas, then you probably shouldn't be looking on wackbag. What did the athiest philosopher say?

[CM Mark]

y does it always have to be ONE god? Why can't there be a goddess as well? ANd what about mor ethan one God each creating a different part?

[jpc165]

my new theory is the big bang was god pulling out and blowing a monster god load, cause he forgot protection and didnt want to knock up some whore he met.

i am coming up with evidence for this theory as we speak...i should be done in about 30 seconds or so.

[Diceman Cometh]

Ok I'll try to refute a skilled doctor of philosophy who has crafted an argument for years even though I'm an undergraduate who takes philosophy for fun. You're looking for a smoking gun when none exists on either side of the debate. If you're looking for a destruction of his ideas, then you probably shouldn't be looking on wackbag. What did the athiest philosopher say?

I wasn't necessarily expecting you to actually refute his points - athiests with doctorates in chemistry, philosophy, astrophysics, quantum physics, and astronomy have had a very hard time doing it. I was just wondering what your thoughts on his arguments were, because it sure gave me a good mindfuck.

The fact is that I cannot refute his arguments, and for that reason I cannot say for sure that he is wrong. Unless you can systematically refute his arguments, I think that maybe you are dismissing his logic a bit too quickly, and not giving his arguments enough respect. As I said, he is the first Theist to EVER make me respect the theistic position in the least.

The atheist in the debate had vey little to say about Craig's cosmological argument. His contentions were mostly aimed at his moral arguments against God existing. And Craig destroyed him on that as well.

[fothermucker]

I'll have to sit down and listen to the whole thing because it's incredibly interesting stuff. The posts on the page say that the theistic doctor was much more articulate than the other guy, which matters for a whole lot considering how far out there beyond established thought these guys are treading.

But this whole debate is circular because it is going around something that we can't really grasp with the mind. The infinite is a tricky bastard, because no matter how much we try to confine it within a boundary, it evades us. Dr. Craig tries to do this from the outset with the example he used at the beginning of the debate, Hilbert's Hotel. I find fault in the usage of his example because he says the hotel has an infinite number of rooms and every room is full, that is an infinite number of people have taken up every space available in infinity. Yet he still says that what if another person in existence comes along and wants a room. How can this possibly occur, if every person (equaled to infinity) already has a room? Logically, the hotel therefore was not completely filled up before and there is more room available. This would go on forever because there would always be more rooms and more people wanting to fill it. The idea of quantifying the infinite is almost insanity.

Read a short story by JL Borges called "The Library of Babylon". This is a perfect example of what a true infinite really entails. It's a story about a library that contains every book taken from something like 27 or 28 different characters, with 40 lines per page, 80 characters per line, and 300 pages per book. The library contains every single random permutation possible. Therefore there are random jibberish books, books of one letter repeated on every page, books that repeat the same letter on every page but have a comma on space 13, line 29, page 151, books that contain the outline of our very destinies, the outline of destinies of people who havent been born, the histories of those who have died, books that are exactly like our destines but off by 1 character, there would be cook books, one book would be a perfect copy of the Iliad and one the Odyssey, there would be copies of the Iliad and the Odyssey off by a single letter and this letter would change for every single available space in a book, one would be the Bible, one would be the Bible backwards, and on and on into infinity. It's utterly unfathomable. Dr. Craig is trying to rationalize this into a mold, which is the very root of his argument and his aim: to put reigns onto a beast that cannot be tamed. What if this beast is everything, is our begetter, and there is no causation for it's existence. It's like he says a God would be: to ask where it came from would be like asking to dig up or draw a square circle. It just wouldn't make sense.

Am I still off on his interpretation? I know I can't do what he's saying justice sitting on a message board with my limited experience. I would love to take a course dedicated entirely to dissecting what he's saying.

[Diceman Cometh]

The infinite is a tricky bastard, because no matter how much we try to confine it within a boundary, it evades us. Dr. Craig tries to do this from the outset with the example he used at the beginning of the debate, Hilbert's Hotel. I find fault in the usage of his example because he says the hotel has an infinite number of rooms and every room is full, that is an infinite number of people have taken up every space available in infinity. Yet he still says that what if another person in existence comes along and wants a room. How can this possibly occur, if every person (equaled to infinity) already has a room? Logically, the hotel therefore was not completely filled up before and there is more room available. This would go on forever because there would always be more rooms and more people wanting to fill it. The idea of quantifying the infinite is almost insanity.

That's precisely his point. The concept of infinity is full of contradictions and mathematical absurdities if placed within a universe than runs on the laws of physics and mathematics.

To use one of his better examples, lets say there was a library with an infinite number of books. Let's say you take out all the ODD-NUMBERED books. How many did you take out? An infinite amount, correct? How many are left? An infinite amount, correct? This is example A.

Now, let's say that instead of taking out all the ODD-NUMBERED books, you left the FIRST FOUR books, and took out all the rest. How many did you take out? An infinite amount. How many are LEFT? Four books. This is example B.

Yet this is a mathematical impossibility, because the definition of subtraction is when you deduct a number from another number, and, if you take the remainder and add it back to the amount you deducted, you would arrive at the original number.

What's happening in THIS example, however, is that you are subtracting EQUAL amounts (infinity in both example A and B) from the same amount (again, infinity) and yet, you are arriving at DIFFERENT results (infinity in example A, and 4 in example B) for the SAME amount - a mathematical adsurdity.

This is just one of his arguments for the impossibility of an infinitely old universe.


Dr. Craig is trying to rationalize this into a mold, which is the very root of his argument and his aim: to put reigns onto a beast that cannot be tamed.

I think Dr. Craig is trying to explain that this "beast" (infinity) cannot exist outside of abstract thought. His point is that you can't put the reigns on infinity, because infinity cannot actually exist.


What if this beast is everything, is our begetter, and there is no causation for it's existence. It's like he says a God would be: to ask where it came from would be like asking to dig up or draw a square circle. It just wouldn't make sense.

People often ask why Dr. Craig feels that the Actual Infinity concept is impossible, yet an Infinite God IS possible.

The answer (in short) is that Craig is not proposing that God exists within the physical universe - he exists OUTSIDE of Space and Time, and is immaterial.

An Actual Infinity, however, supposedly exists WITHIN Space and Time - and Craig is trying to explain that an infinite ANYTHING existing within Space & Time cannot exist.

But he is NOT trying to make the case that God exists within Space and Time. Therefore the laws that make Inifinity impossible to exist in Space and Time do not apply to a force that is OUTSIDE Space and Time.

[My Name Is Earl]

You a sherdogger also? Or are both forums simultaneously searching for an explanation to our existence?

http://www.sherdog.net/forums/showthread.php?t=378831

[Diceman Cometh]

You a sherdogger also? Or are both forums simultaneously searching for an explanation to our existence?

hehe, Sherdog is great.

[grail]

" People often ask why Dr. Craig feels that the Actual Infinity concept is impossible, yet an Infinite God IS possible.

The answer (in short) is that Craig is not proposing that God exists within the physical universe - he exists OUTSIDE of Space and Time, and is immaterial.

An Actual Infinity, however, supposedly exists WITHIN Space and Time - and Craig is trying to explain that an infinite ANYTHING existing within Space & Time cannot exist.
But he is NOT trying to make the case that God exists within Space and Time. Therefore the laws that make Inifinity impossible to exist in Space and Time do not apply to a force that is OUTSIDE Space and Time" (Diceman Cometh)

The portion in red above I totally agree with. Infinity is just that. It's a mathematical and philosophical concept, just as the concept of zero. A simple logic argument is:

The universe is infinite.
God is infinite.
Therefore the universe is god.

Though this argument is flawed for me. I can understand that the concept is infinity and cannot be measured at this point. It's when us as humans have a hard time understanding that something cannot be measured, we assume that;

1. It doesn't exist
2. Make-up an explanation that satifies our mind even if it is not the truth.
or
3. Admit that we know nothing compared to what there is to know and decide to learn more.

It's the second point above that most people in this world chose to go with. The explanation can be that there is a god and that he/she/it created everything just as it is. Which is fine and dandy. However it's not science, it's belief. I think as a scientist however that both belief and science can co-exist in the human mind, and like church and state should be seperated. I go for option 3 personally.

And just for shit's and giggles, someone should link this thread over to sfn just to watch their heads explode.

[Diceman Cometh]

A simple logic argument is:

The universe is infinite.
God is infinite.
Therefore the universe is god.

But it's not a simple logic argument because you haven't proven the first two premises - neither has anyone else.


It's when us as humans have a hard time understanding that something cannot be measured, we assume that;

1. It doesn't exist
2. Make-up an explanation that satifies our mind even if it is not the truth.
or
3. Admit that we know nothing compared to what there is to know and decide to learn more.

It's the second point above that most people in this world chose to go with. The explanation can be that there is a god and that he/she/it created everything just as it is. Which is fine and dandy. However it's not science, it's belief. I think as a scientist however that both belief and science can co-exist in the human mind, and like church and state should be seperated. I go for option 3 personally.


But again, Craig is not coming to the "God" theory out of thin air. He came to the God conclusion by making an inference based on other established premises.

However it's not science, it's belief.

Scientists and mathematicians constantly make inferences based on established premises.

If we KNOW that X cannot exist without Y,
and we see that X exists,
then we know that Y must exist.

More importantly, you cannot discredit the conclusion that "Y must exist" without first discrediting the two previous premises, and proving that X can indeed exist without Y, or that X doesn't exist.

In the equation "A" x 5 = 15, what is A? More importantly, how do you arrive at the answer? You are making an inference - you are using deductive reasoning: "If the only number that you can multiply by 5 to come to 15 is 3, then "A" must equal 3."

That is not a "belief" - that is an inference based on mathematical premises.

That is what Craig is trying to show here.

If we can establish that an actual infinity cannot exist based on the laws of physics and thermodynamics, then we can INFER that the universe cannot be infinitely old. If the universe cannot be infinitely old, then logic dictates that it must have had a beginning. Now, based on the metaphysical truth that everything that has a beginning has a CAUSE, we can INFER that the universe has a cause, and so on.

This approach is not at all unscientific. That is not to say that Craig is DEFINATELY right. But the methods he uses to come to these conclusions are not based on mere superstitious beliefs.