A review of the Craig v. Malpass discussion

[shunyadragon]

Name calling, like Pythagoras, does not respond to any of my posts. I actually agree with your previous post, and name calling gets you nowhere.

The following . . .

. . . his willfully fallacious and demonstrably erroneous claims from here on in the hopes that something of interest might be resurrected for other people to discuss.

[JonathanL]

Pythagoras claimed it does not represent Craig's apologetic argument at all.

He most certainly did not. What he said was that Craig's religious motivations have no bearing on whether the syllogism in question is valid (and/or sound) or not. There is nothing about Craig's arguments against an actual infinite that has been demonstrated to have been affected by his religious beliefs. If you believe that's false you're certainly welcome to try and show otherwise.

[JonathanL]

The following . . .

Is not even remotely close to anything resembling name calling.

[shunyadragon]

He most certainly did not. What he said was that Craig's religious motivations have no bearing on whether the syllogism in question is valid (and/or sound) or not. There is nothing about Craig's arguments against an actual infinite that has been demonstrated to have been affected by his religious beliefs. If you believe that's false you're certainly welcome to try and show otherwise.

He most certainly did: He said the syllogism is irrelevant to Craig's argument.

Which is entirely irrelevant to this particular syllogism.

No explanation how this syllogism would be remotely relevant to the atheist worldview.

[shunyadragon]

Good point, if the universe doesn't curve back on itself, then it is an actual infinity...

Blessings,
Lee

This is only valid if our universe is all there is, and there is no reason nor evidence to support this assumption. It cannot be falsified the our physical existence is finite nor infinite, or temporal nor eternal.

[shunyadragon]

Is not even remotely close to anything resembling name calling.

Yes, it is an accusation equivalent to name calling.

[shunyadragon]

"like Pythagoras"?

Dude, if you think anything BP said to you in this thread constituted name calling you're not living in the same reality as the rest of us.

I live in the reality of science, not ancient metaphysics.

[shunyadragon]

If infinity is not the reality, then what is beyond the finite existence. Nothiningness? What is nothingness, and is it infinite?

As far as the scientific view whether our physical existence is finite or infinite it is not falsifiable, In fact the math of physics and cosmology works very well without infinities.

From the scientific view the nature of our existence and underlying and beyond is Quantum nothingness. We have no evidence of anything else.

Any claims of our physical existence is either finite or infinite is subjective speculation.

[JimL]

As far as the scientific view whether our physical existence is finite or infinite it is not falsifiable, In fact the math of physics and cosmology works very well without infinities.

From the scientific view the nature of our existence and underlying and beyond is Quantum nothingness. We have no evidence of anything else.

Any claims of our physical existence is either finite or infinite is subjective speculation.

Well, I didn't think anyone was going to answer my question, so I appreciate that at least. But, I think if you are going to argue a point, you need to define your terms, like, what does quantum nothingness even mean? Why not just call it nothingness if it's nothing? "Quantum nothingness" makes it sound like something. And I don't know anything about the math concerning infinities, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention in my brief time in school. But when I think of infinitiy, I don't think of the math, I just think of the idea of there being no such thing as nothing, because the idea of nothingness makes no sense to me. The quantum nothingness that you speak of, even if it is empty, even if it's a vacuum, I don't consider that to be nothing, and that vacuum, if nothing else, must, in my opinion, be infinite. I can't imagine what nothing could even mean, other than a kind of vacuum. You, I assume would say that our universe exists within the quantum nothingness, no? That it gave birth to the univerrse? Yes? So what exactly do you mean by quantum nothingness, and however else you define it, would you say that it was infinite, or does it have borders or something, beyond the which where there is some other kind of nothingness?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Well, I didn't think anyone was going to answer my question, so I appreciate that at least.

Sorry, I had actually intended to reply to your post, earlier, but I got lost in my fruitless responses to shuny.

But, I think if you are going to argue a point, you need to define your terms, like, what does quantum nothingness even mean? Why not just call it nothingness if it's nothing? "Quantum nothingness" makes it sound like something.

Incidentally, he's wrong when he says, "From the scientific view the nature of our existence and underlying and beyond is Quantum nothingness." This is not a scientific position. You are absolutely correct to note that "Quantum nothingness" is not even a cogent concept, insofar as I can tell.

And I don't know anything about the math concerning infinities, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention in my brief time in school. But when I think of infinitiy, I don't think of the math, I just think of the idea of there being no such thing as nothing, because the idea of nothingness makes no sense to me.

Unfortunately, the topic of infinity is not usually given a very good treatment for most math programs for high schoolers or undergraduates. It's generally only really discussed in classes on philosophy, the history of mathematics, or set theory. It SHOULD be a part of Calculus classes, in my humblest of opinions, since the notion plays a fairly enormous role in calculus; but it is usually glossed over fairly quickly in those courses, in my experience.

The very, very basics of the mathematics of infinity have to do with counting. If we have a set of objects, we want to know something about the quantity of the objects in that set and how it compares to the quantity of objects in some other given set. So lets say I have a set of smiley faces and a set of frowny faces . If I can match the objects from the first set to the objects from the second without having any left unmatched in either, we say that they have the same number of objects. So, in this case, we do have the same number of smileys and frownies. We can then define generic symbols to represent ANY set which has the same number of objects as a given set, and those are the familiar symbols which we know: 1, 2, 3, 4, (in the case of these particular sets) 5, et cetera.

Now, what if I want to know the quantity of the entire set of these counting numbers? This is where infinity comes into play. It's fairly obvious that if I try to match a set of five things with the set of every possible counting number, there are going to be counting numbers which are left unmatched. And this is true generally, for any finite number, whether it is five or ten-thousand or a googolplex or what-have-you. Thus, the quantity of counting numbers is infinite.

[shunyadragon]

Well, I didn't think anyone was going to answer my question, so I appreciate that at least. But, I think if you are going to argue a point, you need to define your terms, like, what does quantum nothingness even mean? Why not just call it nothingness if it's nothing? "Quantum nothingness" makes it sound like something. And I don't know anything about the math concerning infinities, I didn't pay a whole lot of attention in my brief time in school. But when I think of infinitiy, I don't think of the math, I just think of the idea of there being no such thing as nothing, because the idea of nothingness makes no sense to me. The quantum nothingness that you speak of, even if it is empty, even if it's a vacuum, I don't consider that to be nothing, and that vacuum, if nothing else, must, in my opinion, be infinite. I can't imagine what nothing could even mean, other than a kind of vacuum. You, I assume would say that our universe exists within the quantum nothingness, no? That it gave birth to the univerrse? Yes? So what exactly do you mean by quantum nothingness, and however else you define it, would you say that it was infinite, or does it have borders or something, beyond the which where there is some other kind of nothingness?

I believe the terms for nothingness have been Defined. The absolute nothingness is a philosophical nothing most often used to refer to pre-Creation conditions prior to the existence of our physical existence. It means specifically a vacuum where absolutely nothing exists sometimes referred to as 'Genesis Vacuum.'

From the scientific perspective, yes, 'Quantum nothing' is not nothing. It is the nature of the boundless Quantum World continuum that underlies our our universe and pervades all existence prior to the beginning of our universe, from which all possible universes arise, governed by the Laws of Nature that we describe as Quantum Mechanics. The space/time macroworld of our universe arises from the Quantum World of Quantum Nothingness.

This Forbes article goes into more detail of the different scientific perspectives of may be called 'nothing,' The article is a bit long so I am citing a specific section that is relevant. Forbes tends to be a bit wordy. I personally do not like using the 'nothing term from the science perspective, but nonetheless . . .

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/31/the-four-scientific-meanings-of-nothing/#485188461a5f

The Four Scientific Meanings Of 'Nothing'
Starts With A Bang

Ethan SiegelSenior Contributor
Starts With A BangContributor Group
Science The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

But the matter we have today didn't come from pre-existing matter. At some point in the distant past, the Universe was composed of equal amounts of matter and antimatter; the laws of physics that we've discovered only enable us to create them in equal amounts. Yet the Universe we have today is overwhelmingly made of matter and not antimatter, where every one of the billions upon billions of galaxies we know of are made of matter and not antimatter. Where did our matter asymmetry come from? From a previously symmetric state; from a state where matter and antimatter existed in equal amounts. From a time when there was no asymmetry. According to some, this means that the matter we have today arose from nothing, although others who adhere strictly to one of the other definitions dispute this.

4.) Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time, and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of "nothing" that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond "nothing" as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of spacetime from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.

But is that possible? How does spacetime emerge at a particular location, when there's no such thing as space? How can you create the beginning of time if there's no concept of something like "before" without time already existing? And where, then, would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise from? Does this final definition of "nothing" even mean anything at all, or is it just a logical construct with no physical meaning of its own?

Fluctuations in spacetime itself at the quantum scale get stretched across the Universe during... [+] inflation, giving rise to imperfections in both density and gravitational waves. While inflating space can rightfully be called 'nothing' in many regards, not everyone agrees.
Fluctuations in spacetime itself at the quantum scale get stretched across the Universe during...

There is no consensus here. With language having the ambiguity it does, you can say "nothing" and legitimately be referring to any of these, with purists eagerly waiting to yell at you if you dare use "nothing" in a context which is less pure than their definition. If something fundamentally arose where there was no such thing before, you can call it nothing, but not everyone will agree. If you take all the matter, antimatter, radiation, and even spatial curvature away, you can certainly lay a claim to that being what "nothing" is all about, but there are some "things" that are still around. If you then take away any energy inherent to space itself, leaving only spacetime and the laws of nature, you can call that "nothing" as well. But philosophically, some people will still be dissatisfied. Only by taking away that as well will some finally acquiesce to calling such an entity "nothing."

© Copyright Original Source

[JimL]

I believe the terms for nothingness have been Defined. The absolute nothingness is a philosophical nothing most often used to refer to pre-Creation conditions prior to the existence of our physical existence. It means specifically a vacuum where absolutely nothing exists sometimes referred to as 'Genesis Vacuum.'

From the scientific perspective, yes, 'Quantum nothing' is not nothing. It is the nature of the boundless Quantum World continuum that underlies our our universe and pervades all existence prior to the beginning of our universe, from which all possible universes arise, governed by the Laws of Nature that we describe as Quantum Mechanics. The space/time macroworld of our universe arises from the Quantum World of Quantum Nothingness.

This Forbes article goes into more detail of the different scientific perspectives of may be called 'nothing,' The article is a bit long so I am citing a specific section that is relevant. Forbes tends to be a bit wordy. I personally do not like using the 'nothing term from the science perspective, but nonetheless . . .

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/01/31/the-four-scientific-meanings-of-nothing/#485188461a5f

The Four Scientific Meanings Of 'Nothing'
Starts With A Bang

Ethan SiegelSenior Contributor
Starts With A BangContributor Group
Science The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.

But the matter we have today didn't come from pre-existing matter. At some point in the distant past, the Universe was composed of equal amounts of matter and antimatter; the laws of physics that we've discovered only enable us to create them in equal amounts. Yet the Universe we have today is overwhelmingly made of matter and not antimatter, where every one of the billions upon billions of galaxies we know of are made of matter and not antimatter. Where did our matter asymmetry come from? From a previously symmetric state; from a state where matter and antimatter existed in equal amounts. From a time when there was no asymmetry. According to some, this means that the matter we have today arose from nothing, although others who adhere strictly to one of the other definitions dispute this.

4.) Whatever you're left with when you take away the entire Universe and the laws governing it. At last, you can conceive of removing everything, including space, time, and the rules that govern any sort of particles or quanta of energy. This creates a type of "nothing" that physicists have no definition for. This goes beyond "nothing" as it exists in the Universe, instead realizing some sort of philosophical, absolute nothingness. But in the context of physics, we cannot make sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd have to assume that there is such a thing as a state outside of space and time, where you can have the emergence of spacetime from this hypothesized state of true nothingness.

But is that possible? How does spacetime emerge at a particular location, when there's no such thing as space? How can you create the beginning of time if there's no concept of something like "before" without time already existing? And where, then, would the rules governing particles and their interactions arise from? Does this final definition of "nothing" even mean anything at all, or is it just a logical construct with no physical meaning of its own?

Fluctuations in spacetime itself at the quantum scale get stretched across the Universe during... [+] inflation, giving rise to imperfections in both density and gravitational waves. While inflating space can rightfully be called 'nothing' in many regards, not everyone agrees.
Fluctuations in spacetime itself at the quantum scale get stretched across the Universe during...

There is no consensus here. With language having the ambiguity it does, you can say "nothing" and legitimately be referring to any of these, with purists eagerly waiting to yell at you if you dare use "nothing" in a context which is less pure than their definition. If something fundamentally arose where there was no such thing before, you can call it nothing, but not everyone will agree. If you take all the matter, antimatter, radiation, and even spatial curvature away, you can certainly lay a claim to that being what "nothing" is all about, but there are some "things" that are still around. If you then take away any energy inherent to space itself, leaving only spacetime and the laws of nature, you can call that "nothing" as well. But philosophically, some people will still be dissatisfied. Only by taking away that as well will some finally acquiesce to calling such an entity "nothing."

© Copyright Original Source

Thank you for that Shunya, thats the kind of answer to my question that I've long been looking for. It doesn't define nothingness exactly, it just explains somethingness as we know it without the which we arrive at an infinite something (nothingness) out of which the something we are aware of arises. But whatever that other something is, it itself must be infinite, in my opinion, else we come back to the idea of absolute nothingness which seems to me to be an inexplicable and nonsensical concept.

[JonathanL]

I believe the terms for nothingness have been Defined. The absolute nothingness is a philosophical nothing most often used to refer to pre-Creation conditions prior to the existence of our physical existence. It means specifically a vacuum where absolutely nothing exists sometimes referred to as 'Genesis Vacuum.'

Calling absolute nothingness a "vacuum" is still misleading, because absolute nothingness also implies a complete lack of any space where a "vacuum" could exist. Absolute nothingness is not a thing in itself, it's just the lack of existence all together.

[shunyadragon]

Calling absolute nothingness a "vacuum" is still misleading, because absolute nothingness also implies a complete lack of any space where a "vacuum" could exist. Absolute nothingness is not a thing in itself, it's just the lack of existence all together.

Describe it as you wish, but yes some theologians describe the philosophical absolute nothing as a "vacuum." This does not change the opposing concepts as described.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Describe it as you wish, but yes some theologians describe the philosophical absolute nothing as a "vacuum." This does not change the opposing concepts as described.

Which theologians say that? Where have they said it?