Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
An Infinite Past?
Collapse
X
-
OK Tass, I think we beat this poor horse the death. I will leave you with the last word.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIf I remember correctly Philosophical Naturalism denies any possibility of the supernatural. How, can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold that position?
How can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold the position that there do not exist any numbers which are red? There is an infinite quantity of numbers, and no person can have checked them all, individually!
Of course, a rational person can immediately see that the question makes no sense. Similarly, the idea of something "outside" of space or something "before" time-- generally features ascribed to the supernatural-- are entirely nonsensical. Of course, there may be some cogent definition of "supernatural" of which I am unaware, in which case I welcome it.
I think you are missing my point. Such events, i.e. miracles, would be rare and witnessed by a limited number of people. These are not phenomenon that you reason out through hypotheses. That is not how history works or is known. That however does not make them any less true. And I wasn't trying to convince you, I was seriously asking if you could come up with a natural explanation. I could not, and I asked a number of people (more educated than I) if they could. Even though I was praying at the time, and I think this event did violate the laws of nature, I really am open to a natural explanation.
If you intended the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, the burden of proof is on you to show that it has no natural explanation. If you did not intend the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, then the occurrence is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
So, which is it: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?"[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 PostBecause "supernatural" is not even a cogent concept.
How can a person, with limited experience and understanding, hold the position that there do not exist any numbers which are red? There is an infinite quantity of numbers, and no person can have checked them all, individually!
Of course, a rational person can immediately see that the question makes no sense. Similarly, the idea of something "outside" of space or something "before" time-- generally features ascribed to the supernatural-- are entirely nonsensical. Of course, there may be some cogent definition of "supernatural" of which I am unaware, in which case I welcome it.
You said that you brought up this occurrence in order to show that not everything has a natural explanation. That was your original intention in mentioning it, at all, correct?
If you intended the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, the burden of proof is on you to show that it has no natural explanation. If you did not intend the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, then the occurrence is entirely irrelevant to the conversation.
So, which is it: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?Last edited by seer; 08-22-2014, 08:17 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSorry, I do not see how this follows from your analogy. Just because your limited mind can't wrap around the concept tells us nothing of the truth of it. You say it is nonsensical but what law of logic does it violate? Or is it just nonsensical based on your finite, limited experience? And if memory serves even men like Stephen Hawking claim that there was "something" before time.
It's difficult to wrap one's mind around the concept of a non-Euclidean four-dimensional manifold. However, the concept is completely cogent. On the other hand, the proposition that there is a secret military base three kilometers north of the North Pole is not cogent. Cogency has nothing to do with "wrapping your mind around" the concept.
Similarly, the question of what came "before" time is completely lacking in cogency. The word "before" describes a temporal relationship. It is absolutely meaningless in the absence of time. Similarly, the word "outside" describes a spatial relationship, and is completely meaningless in the absence of space.
Hawking certainly does not say that there was something "before" time. In fact, in his book "The Grand Design," he states explicitly that, "You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in."
No, I was making the point that such events, like mine, are historical in nature. And would be a fact of history, whether you found it convincing or not.
First, see above. And second, I am open to a natural explanation. But to repeat, this was in context of you requiring a hypotheses - which was just silly, that is not how history works, and these would be historical events.."[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 PostSimilarly, the question of what came "before" time is completely lacking in cogency. The word "before" describes a temporal relationship. It is absolutely meaningless in the absence of time. Similarly, the word "outside" describes a spatial relationship, and is completely meaningless in the absence of space.
Hawking certainly does not say that there was something "before" time. In fact, in his book "The Grand Design," he states explicitly that, "You can’t get to a time before the big bang, because there was no time before the big bang. We have finally found something that does not have a cause because there was no time for a cause to exist in."
You brought up the allegedly supernatural occurrence before I ever even joined the conversation, so it could not possibly have been in response to anything I said. Again, I'll reiterate my question: did you intend for the readers of this thread to believe that this occurrence is evidence that not everything has a natural explanation, or did you not?Last edited by seer; 08-22-2014, 12:25 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View Post
No, I was making the point that such events, like mine, are historical in nature. And would be a fact of history, whether you found it convincing or not.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostLet's be clear. Did something exist before the Big Bang? Or are you suggesting that this finite universe popped out of nothing? How is that not a "concept lacking cogency?" Or do you hold to infinite regression?
How many times must I explain this to you Boxing? I only brought this up in our discussion for the reason I gave, if you go back and read my responses to you that is the context. I brought it up in a different context before you showed up.
First, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My point has been, and is, there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation. I linked to a real event of my own experience. Does the fact that I can't demonstrate its veracity to an audience make it any less real? Any less a fact of history than any other fact of history?
Either you were trying to convince people that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation," or else that statement is entirely irrelevant."[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 PostI'm certainly not suggesting that the universe "popped out of nothing." That would be just as lacking in cogency as any other claim that there was something "before" time. I am simply saying that, regardless of whether one thinks that time is past-finite or past-eternal, the phrase "before time" is nonsensical.
The first time you mentioned your personal experience in the context of our conversation was here:
So, again, if you are not trying to convince anyone of anything, why even make the claim that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs natural explanation?"
And, if you were not trying to convince anyone of anything, why even mention an event in your own life which, if accurate, would seem to support your proposition? Why even participate in a persuasive dialectic, at all, if you were not trying to convince anyone of anything?
Either you were trying to convince people that, "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation," or else that statement is entirely irrelevant.
The next post I said: Let me ask again, why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events? and Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that God interacts in history, with what we call miracles - what possible hypotheses could I offer? Again, you are making me play by your rules by assuming that materialism is the default position.
This was all in the context of you requiring hypotheses for my position. It had to do with: 1) Assuming that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation, and 2) the request for a hypotheses, which is not how historical claims are verified.Last edited by seer; 08-22-2014, 01:26 PM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo what came before? Do you hold to infinite regression?
Personally, I favor past-finite models of space-time. However, I do not find any problem with infinite regression on past-eternal models. Either way, the question is irrelevant. "Before time" is still a completely nonsensical phrase.
In the very same post I said: But you are making me play by your rules, something I have already rejected.
The next post I said: Let me ask again, why do we need to assume a natural cause for all events? and Ok, for the sake of argument let's say that God interacts in history, with what we call miracles - what possible hypotheses could I offer? Again, you are making me play by your rules by assuming that materialism is the default position.
This was all in the context of you requiring hypotheses for my position. It had to do with: 1) Assuming that all phenomenon has or needs a natural explanation, and 2) the request for a hypotheses, which is not how historical claims are verified.
Historical claims are most certainly verified by evidence, in the field of historiography. We don't simply believe everything Herodotus told us in his Histories simply because Herodotus said it. We use the historical claim as an initial hypothesis, and we attempt to gather data which corroborates this hypothesis. That is how historians study history."[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"What came before?" is a nonsensical question. You might as well ask "What's north of the North Pole?"
Personally, I favor past-finite models of space-time. However, I do not find any problem with infinite regression on past-eternal models. Either way, the question is irrelevant. "Before time" is still a completely nonsensical phrase.
I was neither requesting nor requiring a hypothesis. You had already asserted your hypothesis: "there is no logical reason to assume that all phenomenon has or needs natural explanation." I was asking you to justify this claim.
Historical claims are most certainly verified by evidence, in the field of historiography. We don't simply believe everything Herodotus told us in his Histories simply because Herodotus said it. We use the historical claim as an initial hypothesis, and we attempt to gather data which corroborates this hypothesis. That is how historians study history.
OK, I explained what I was trying to do.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostOk, so if we have a finite past then either space-time popped out of nothing, or something came before that gave rise to it. I don't see a third option, do you.
And how does time make sense if it is past-eternal? What year would we be in now? How do we mark time in an eternal past?
OK, I explained what I was trying to do."[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 PostThe third option is that space-time is temporally bounded in the past, very much in the same way that Latitude is directionally bounded to the North.
This seems fairly obvious. In a past-eternal universe, we would mark time in exactly the same manner as we mark time, currently: choose an arbitrary point in time, and mark temporal displacement from that point. We wouldn't have to change a thing!Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat does that mean? Temporally bounded in the past? How does this look physically?
So what year would we be in now given an eternal past? I'm not speaking of marking arbitrary sections, but how time could make sense in an infinite past."[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 PostNon-Euclidean geometry can be a bit peculiar, but are you familiar with Polar Graphs, at all? That would give a really nice two dimensional analog. A past-finite temporal boundary would be something akin to the pole on a polar graph.
...2014. We don't currently mark time from the beginning of time. We chose an arbitrary moment, 2014 years in the past. Other points in time are marked by their temporal displacement from that arbitrary moment. When did Pythagoras win at boxing in the Olympic games? Five-hundred eighty-eight years before our arbitrary marker, so 588 BC (or BCE, if we're being politically correct). When did Cassius Clay win the gold medal in the Olympics? One-thousand nine-hundred sixty years after our arbitrary marker, so AD 1960 (or CE, similarly).Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
608 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
Comment