Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Problems and Questions in Atheism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
    Again, you're not quite grasping the situation. It's not as if all of physics suddenly ceases to have any meaning at the event horizon of a black hole. It's simply that some particular aspects of black hole physics are not understood. This isn't an all-or-nothing scenario. There remain aspects of physics which apply perfectly well within the event horizon.

    As I've said, a singularity is a mathematical term. It's not a physical object.
    My understanding is that all the physics, along with time and space itself unite at the singularity to the point where they no longer have any independent meaning.
    Yes, if there is a finite boundary to space, then there is a finite boundary to space. That seems fairly tautological.
    Just making sure that I understood the concept of finite space.
    This doesn't follow, in the slightest. Again, there is nothing which is north of the North Pole. This does not imply that there must actually be something which is north of the North Pole, and that this something is infinite in expanse.
    I don't think you can use the the earth, a specific place within the universe, north, south, up and down, as analogous of the universe as a whole, if the universe is infinite then there is always something beyond any point in any direction. If on the other hand, the universe is finite, then there must be an edge to space beyond the which you can not go, there is nothingness, whatever that would mean, and that is why the idea of a finite universe and nothingness doesn't make sense to me.
    I would be tempted to call attention to the false dichotomy, here, except that it isn't even a dichotomy. You're saying that either the universe is expanding into something or else it is expanding into something. Again, it is not the case that the universe is expanding into something. It is unnecessary to posit the existence of some sort of super-space in which to situate space-time.
    The issue is not whether it is necessary or not, the issue is what is, and of course I am only musing on the matter, but I think that the fact that space is a something that can bend, warp and stretch means that it can under certain circumstances balloon within itself creating a sort of balloon of space floating about within a larger space. For instance, what is a black hole? Mind you, I am not asserting anything, just thinking.
    I'm not going to spend yet another thread trying to rehash the same discussions of the B-Theory. For now, I'll simply say that the fact that all moments of time are coextant on the B-Theory does not imply that all states at those moments are equal.
    Right, but that universe is static, its just sitting there in its 14 billion light year radius finitude.
    It is incoherent because you are attempting to say that space ends and that it doesn't end at the same time. The word "outside" is a spatial descriptor. It is meaningless in the absence of space. If space is finite, that means that there is a boundary. Not a wall or a partition or a blockade. It means that space ends. There is no "outside," as that would imply the existence of space after the end of space, which is self-contradictory and nonsensical.
    Which to me is what makes the idea of finite space ridiculous. If there is no outside to the universe, then the universe must be infinite.
    I said, "Either you have to admit that there may be something which exists without having been 'born' or you are forced to claim that our universe exists within an infinite panoply of shell universes like some sort of unending series of Matryoshka dolls." The first word of your reply to that statement was, "No," after which you described something which exists without having been born. This is why I was confused.
    My belief is that the universe is eternal, and its eternal nature is one of motion and change, which motion and changes are measured temporally.
    So then why do you think spacetime has a cause or "belongs" to anything?
    I don't, I believe our particular spacetime universe has a cause, not in its existence per se, but in its form.
    Last edited by JimL; 01-14-2017, 07:38 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
      My understanding is that all the physics, along with time and space itself unite at the singularity to the point where they no longer have any independent meaning.
      In a black hole, the singularity refers to a spot in the mathematics where the geometry of spacetime is described by a divergent function. As a result, mathematics regarding the behavior of spacetime are undefined for this particular phenomenon. That doesn't imply that all of physics ceases to have any meaning. It simply means that we don't understand how the physics works for this phenomenon.

      Generally, the presence of a singularity in a formula of physics indicates that we are simply missing some piece of the puzzle as regards the behavior of that phenomenon. It doesn't indicate that physics becomes meaningless.

      I don't think you can use the the earth, a specific place within the universe, north, south, up and down, as analogous of the universe as a whole
      I wasn't using the Earth as analogous to the universe. I was using the fact that the concept of North has a boundary as analogous to the concept that space can be bounded.

      ...if the universe is infinite then there is always something beyond any point in any direction.
      Not necessarily. It's entirely possible for a dimension of space to be unidirectionally bounded-- that is to say, finite in one direction but infinite in the other.

      If on the other hand, the universe is finite, then there must be an edge to space beyond the which you can not go, there is nothingness
      If you cannot go beyond that boundary, then it is not the case that "there is nothingness" beyond that boundary. There is no such thing as "beyond the boundary." Space just ends. There is no other side.

      The issue is not whether it is necessary or not, the issue is what is, and of course I am only musing on the matter, but I think that the fact that space is a something that can bend, warp and stretch means that it can under certain circumstances balloon within itself creating a sort of balloon of space floating about within a larger space. For instance, what is a black hole? Mind you, I am not asserting anything, just thinking.
      If space were ballooning within itself, then the edge which you propose is not actually a finite boundary for space-- in which case, you're talking about something entirely different than I am.

      As for black holes, in this context, they are objects which are so massive that their gravitational field describes an extreme curvature of space. Despite their colloquial nomenclature, black holes are not actually holes, in the sense that they bore through some medium.

      Right, but that universe is static, its just sitting there in its 14 billion light year radius finitude.
      No. At earlier periods of time, that radius is smaller. At later periods of time, that radius is larger. But again, I will not derail yet another thread on the B-Theory. If you want to discuss the B-Theory, there are plenty of other threads in which that discussion has been occurring-- most recently here.

      Which to me is what makes the idea of finite space ridiculous. If there is no outside to the universe, then the universe must be infinite.
      That's just silly. You're saying that if the universe is finite, then it must be infinite. That's obviously self-contradictory.

      My belief is that the universe is eternal, and its eternal nature is one of motion and change, which motion and changes are measured temporally.
      Very Aristotelian. Upon what do you base this belief?

      I don't, I believe our particular spacetime universe has a cause, not in its existence per se, but in its form.
      Why?
      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

      Comment


      • I see time as now and its past. Only with God is future, present and past, some call it the eternal now. God's omniscience is absolute. And God's temporal agent who is the basis of supposted open theism and the reason for everything God alone does.

        All finite entities have a beginning. There is only one uncaused entity. If you count more uncaused entities they are also that one or they are caused entities.
        Last edited by 37818; 01-14-2017, 02:24 PM.
        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
          In a black hole, the singularity refers to a spot in the mathematics where the geometry of spacetime is described by a divergent function. As a result, mathematics regarding the behavior of spacetime are undefined for this particular phenomenon. That doesn't imply that all of physics ceases to have any meaning. It simply means that we don't understand how the physics works for this phenomenon.

          Generally, the presence of a singularity in a formula of physics indicates that we are simply missing some piece of the puzzle as regards the behavior of that phenomenon. It doesn't indicate that physics becomes meaningless.
          Well, wouldn't you say that the terms "undefinable" and "meaningless" with respect to the physics concerning singularities, practically speaking, amount to the same thing.
          I wasn't using the Earth as analogous to the universe. I was using the fact that the concept of North has a boundary as analogous to the concept that space can be bounded.
          But we are not in the earth, we are on it, whereas with respect to space, we are in it. So I am not seeing how that analogy fits.
          Not necessarily. It's entirely possible for a dimension of space to be unidirectionally bounded-- that is to say, finite in one direction but infinite in the other.
          But that is not an actual infinite, if it is limited in either direction how can it be defined as infinite?
          If you cannot go beyond that boundary, then it is not the case that "there is nothingness" beyond that boundary. There is no such thing as "beyond the boundary." Space just ends. There is no other side.
          But space is something that you can walk through, so what would it be at the edge, or at the boundary of finite space that would stop you from passing through it?
          If space were ballooning within itself, then the edge which you propose is not actually a finite boundary for space-- in which case, you're talking about something entirely different than I am.
          Hmmm, good point, but actually I think that ballooning was a confusing term to use, stretching might be a better term. Its not that its a bounded space within a larger space, but an area of space within a larger space that is stretching relative to the whole.
          As for black holes, in this context, they are objects which are so massive that their gravitational field describes an extreme curvature of space. Despite their colloquial nomenclature, black holes are not actually holes, in the sense that they bore through some medium.
          Understood, but the do stretch space, no?
          No. At earlier periods of time, that radius is smaller. At later periods of time, that radius is larger. But again, I will not derail yet another thread on the B-Theory. If you want to discuss the B-Theory, there are plenty of other threads in which that discussion has been occurring-- most recently here.

          That's just silly. You're saying that if the universe is finite, then it must be infinite. That's obviously self-contradictory.
          No, what I'm suggesting is that if there is no outside to the universe then it must be the case that the universe is infinite. If it is infinite, then outside of it makes no sense.
          Very Aristotelian. Upon what do you base this belief?
          The ridiculousness of the idea of nothingness.
          Why?
          Same as above.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            Well, wouldn't you say that the terms "undefinable" and "meaningless" with respect to the physics concerning singularities, practically speaking, amount to the same thing.
            I didn't say that the physics are "undefinable." I said that a particular mathematical operation in the physics as we know it is undefined. That does not imply that the physics cannot possibly be understood. It just means we're missing something.

            But we are not in the earth, we are on it, whereas with respect to space, we are in it. So I am not seeing how that analogy fits.
            Whether we are on the Earth or not is irrelevant. We're discussing a bounded spatial dimension. "North" is an example of a bounded spatial dimension. I could have just as easily pointed to the origin of a polar graph or some other mathematical representation of a bounded spatial dimension, but I decided to use a familiar one.

            But that is not an actual infinite, if it is limited in either direction how can it be defined as infinite?
            Because it is unlimited in a direction. Zero is the smallest Natural number-- there is no Natural number which is less than zero. However, there is no greatest Natural number-- the set is unbounded in the direction of larger values. So the natural numbers are unidirectionally infinite.

            Similarly, a Ray in geometry has a single endpoint and then extends infinitely from that point. It is unidirectionally infinite.

            But space is something that you can walk through, so what would it be at the edge, or at the boundary of finite space that would stop you from passing through it?
            The fact that it ends. In order to pass through some region of space, there must be space for you to occupy on the other side of that region. That is not the case if space is bounded and you're making a nonsensical attempt to pass through the boundary.

            Hmmm, good point, but actually I think that ballooning was a confusing term to use, stretching might be a better term. Its not that its a bounded space within a larger space, but an area of space within a larger space that is stretching relative to the whole.
            Then you're still talking about a space which is not actually finite, in which case we are talking about different things.

            Understood, but the do stretch space, no?
            Spacetime has an extreme curvature in black holes. Whether they "stretch" space is a more complex question than you might realize.

            No, what I'm suggesting is that if there is no outside to the universe then it must be the case that the universe is infinite. If it is infinite, then outside of it makes no sense.
            If it is finite, then "outside of it" makes no sense, either. It's like asking what letter comes after Z in the English alphabet.

            The ridiculousness of the idea of nothingness.
            Then you have a fairly poor basis for that belief, since the fact that "nothingness" is ridiculous does not imply anything at all about the universe's eternality, let alone that this eternality is one of motion and change.
            Last edited by Boxing Pythagoras; 01-16-2017, 08:12 AM.
            "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
            --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
              I see time as now and its past. Only with God is future, present and past, some call it the eternal now. God's omniscience is absolute. And God's temporal agent who is the basis of supposted open theism and the reason for everything God alone does.

              All finite entities have a beginning. There is only one uncaused entity. If you count more uncaused entities they are also that one or they are caused entities.
              You stated the summary of your religious belief and why you believe, but it is anecdotal and groundless beynd a statement of belief.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                I didn't say that the physics are "undefinable." I said that a particular mathematical operation in the physics as we know it is undefined. That does not imply that the physics cannot possibly be understood. It just means we're missing something.

                Whether we are on the Earth or not is irrelevant. We're discussing a bounded spatial dimension. "North" is an example of a bounded spatial dimension. I could have just as easily pointed to the origin of a polar graph or some other mathematical representation of a bounded spatial dimension, but I decided to use a familiar one.
                Bounded space can't be bounded by space itself, since space itself can be passed through, so if space itself is expanding it must be expanding, or passing through something like itself, something that can be passed through. You can call that a void or empty space, or you can even call it nothing if it suits you, but that void, empty space, or nothing if you will, must exist, else how do you explain the expansion?
                Because it is unlimited in a direction. Zero is the smallest Natural number-- there is no Natural number which is less than zero. However, there is no greatest Natural number-- the set is unbounded in the direction of larger values. So the natural numbers are unidirectionally infinite.
                Numbers themselves, such as zero, are man made conceptions, there may be a beginning to natural numbers such as zero, but an actual infinity needn't be defined by natural numbers. 00000000000000000 or 11111111111111111, can go on infinitly in either direction
                Similarly, a Ray in geometry has a single endpoint and then extends infinitely from that point. It is unidirectionally infinite.
                I may be wrong, but I believe that would be a potential infinite, not an acftual infinite. An actual infinite by definition is not limited in either direction.
                The fact that it ends. In order to pass through some region of space, there must be space for you to occupy on the other side of that region. That is not the case if space is bounded and you're making a nonsensical attempt to pass through the boundary.
                If space can be passed through, which is obviously the case, then how can space be bounded by itself? What would happen if you were at the edge of space and tried to punch your way through it to the outside. Would you put a dent in it?
                Then you're still talking about a space which is not actually finite, in which case we are talking about different things.
                Right, not actually finite, because actually finite space in the sense of there being no other space, or no other place, into which space can expand, is incomprehensible.
                Spacetime has an extreme curvature in black holes. Whether they "stretch" space is a more complex question than you might realize.
                Perhaps.
                If it is finite, then "outside of it" makes no sense, either. It's like asking what letter comes after Z in the English alphabet.
                Right, finite space makes no sense, because it requires a reality of "nothingness," which is a ludicrous, inexplicable concept, whereas infinite space does not.
                Then you have a fairly poor basis for that belief, since the fact that "nothingness" is ridiculous does not imply anything at all about the universe's eternality, let alone that this eternality is one of motion and change.
                Sure it does, if there is no such thing as nothing, then prima facie, the universe must needs be eternal, and afaict, no attribute can be denied to whatever is eternal.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                  Numbers themselves, such as zero, are man made conceptions, there may be a beginning to natural numbers such as zero, but an actual infinity needn't be defined by natural numbers. 00000000000000000 or 11111111111111111, can go on infinitly in either direction
                  I didn't say that an actual infinite needed to be defined by numbers. I said that the set of Natural numbers is actually infinite.

                  I may be wrong, but I believe that would be a potential infinite, not an acftual infinite. An actual infinite by definition is not limited in either direction.
                  You are wrong. A "potential infinite" refers to an iterative process which can be continued indefinitely. For example, successive counting-- if I say the number "1," followed by "2" and then "3" and then "4" and so on, the process of counting is potentially infinite, because there is no upper limit to the numbers which I can list.

                  An "actual infinite" is a number which is greater than any finite number. The length of a ray is actually infinite. All of the points which compose that ray are entirely coextant-- we are not talking about a successive process of representing a ray by drawing it on a page, we are talking about the actual ray. As such, this is not a "potential infinity." The ray is actually infinite, despite having an endpoint in one direction.

                  If space can be passed through, which is obviously the case, then how can space be bounded by itself? What would happen if you were at the edge of space and tried to punch your way through it to the outside. Would you put a dent in it?
                  Space isn't bounded "by itself," in finite models. It's simply bounded. There is no outside. In order to pass through space, there must exist space beyond the region you are passing through. In order to punch through to the outside, there must be an outside. Neither of these is the case for the boundary to space in finite models.

                  Right, not actually finite, because actually finite space in the sense of there being no other space, or no other place, into which space can expand, is incomprehensible.
                  It's actually entirely comprehensible. Cosmologists comprehend it perfectly well in their day to day work. It's difficult to comprehend for anyone who doesn't have a strong mathematical background, but an individual person's inability to comprehend a thing does not imply the impossibility of that thing.

                  Right, finite space makes no sense, because it requires a reality of "nothingness," which is a ludicrous, inexplicable concept, whereas infinite space does not.
                  No. It doesn't. No matter how many times you insist on knocking down this Straw Man, it remains untrue. Finite space does not require a "reality of 'nothingness.'"

                  Sure it does, if there is no such thing as nothing, then prima facie, the universe must needs be eternal, and afaict, no attribute can be denied to whatever is eternal.
                  Again, it is not the case that the ridiculousness of "nothingness" implies eternality. The finitude of Time is not dependent upon the existence of some real and extant state of "nothingness." Furthermore, the fact that something is eternal most certainly does not imply that "no attribute can be denied" to it. That's just silly.
                  "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                  --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                    Models in which the dimension of time has no earliest moment.
                    The Steady State Theory. From 1920 on.
                    . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                    . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                    Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                      The Steady State Theory. From 1920 on.
                      Steady State Theory proposed one such model. It is not the only such model. A model does not need to be a variation on Steady State in order to have a past-infinite direction of time.
                      "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                      --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                        You stated the summary of your religious belief and why you believe, but it is anecdotal and groundless beynd a statement of belief.
                        Uncaused existence has no origin, no beginning. All causes are finite and temporal.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                          The Steady State Theory. From 1920 on.
                          No
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            No
                            No, what?
                            Source: http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/steady_state.html

                            Steady State Theory:
                            The steady-state theory is a view that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a constant average density, matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones become unobservable as a consequence of their increasing distance and velocity of recession. A steady-state universe has no beginning or end in time; and from any point within it the view on the grand scale--i.e., the average density and arrangement of galaxies--is the same. Galaxies of all possible ages are intermingled.

                            The theory was first put forward by Sir James Jeans in about 1920 and again in revised form in 1948 by Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. It was further developed by Sir Fred Hoyle to deal with problems that had arisen in connection with the alternative big-bang hypothesis. Observations since the 1950s have produced much evidence contradictory to the steady-state picture and supportive of the big-bang model

                            Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                              Steady State Theory proposed one such model. It is not the only such model. A model does not need to be a variation on Steady State in order to have a past-infinite direction of time.
                              Right, there's also the Hawking-Hartle model, Turok and Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic model, Vilenkin's proto-universe, etc., etc.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                                Uncaused existence has no origin, no beginning.
                                Again, our natural laws and the nature of our physical existence is possibly uncaused, and has no origin.


                                All causes are finite and temporal.
                                Again . . . Since you believe God is the cause of everything, therefore the logical conclusion by the above is God is finite and temporal.

                                Again . . . You stated the summary of your religious belief and why you believe, but it is anecdotal and groundless beyond a statement of belief.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X