d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > First Direct Evidence Of Inflation(cosmology) > Was Announced Today!
Prev1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Mar 20 2014 08:27pm
Quote (Azrad @ 20 Mar 2014 23:32)
ah yes, Christian apologetics, now that is REAL science... Might want to ask them to amend that statement "speculative theories", lol.


interestingly enough the base argument used by wlc goes back to islamic philosophers and is the 'reverse' of how cantor justified his belief in a god
but for further explanation do not forget "HighschoolTurd"s understanding of 'cognitive theory' ;)
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Mar 21 2014 01:03am
Quote (brmv @ Mar 20 2014 07:27pm)
further explanation do not forget "HighschoolTurd"s understanding of 'cognitive theory'  ;)
:rofl:

Heh, according to Craig, inflation has been dead since the 80's (which is how he avoids dealing with it).

Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Mar 21 2014 04:01am
Quote (Azrad @ 21 Mar 2014 07:03)
:rofl:
Heh, according to Craig, inflation has been dead since the 80's (which is how he avoids dealing with it).


since i am very much in favour of interdisciplinary collaboration, i assume that his speculative input into astrophysics and cosmology is highly valued B)
Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Mar 21 2014 04:39am
Quote (Azrad @ Mar 20 2014 07:32pm)
ah yes, Christian apologetics, now that is REAL science... Might want to ask them to amend that statement "speculative theories", lol.


its kind of funny how intelligent creationists might propose that aliens created us, to which people might argue, it dosnt answer how life came about in the first place.

yet when some one argues that the process in which the big bang created our universe dosnt explain where the universe came from, its just mockery and ignorning the actual point.

Though granted, im not trying to argue that therefore a conscious god must have created the universe.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Mar 21 2014 04:42am
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Mar 21 2014 05:33am
craigs arguements go:

    [1]Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
    [2]The universe has a beginning of its existence
    [3]∴The universe has a cause of its existence
There is lots of reason to think 1 is wrong. 2 might even be wrong. Yet he feels confident to just continue on to the 3 as if none of that mattered.

    [1]An actual infinite cannot exist
    [2]An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
    [3]∴An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist
Again, there is no reason to believe 1 is correct, yet he just soldiers on to 3...

    [1]A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
    [2]The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition
    [3]∴The temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite
And this one takes the cake. 1 is demonstrably false, but of course, he continues on without caring to 3.
Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Mar 21 2014 05:43am
Quote (Azrad @ Mar 21 2014 07:33am)
craigs arguements go:

    [1]Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
    [2]The universe has a beginning of its existence
    [3]∴The universe has a cause of its existence
There is lots of reason to think 1 is wrong. 2 might even be wrong. Yet he feels confident to just continue on to the 3 as if none of that mattered.

    [1]An actual infinite cannot exist
    [2]An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
    [3]∴An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist
Again, there is no reason to believe 1 is correct, yet he just soldiers on to 3...

    [1]A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
    [2]The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition
    [3]∴The temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite
And this one takes the cake. 1 is demonstrably false, but of course, he continues on without caring to 3.


so do you have any proof the universe in infinite? or that anything material can existin in infinite? like an infinite bottle of water, that would be awesome.

I kinda feel as though that law about entrophy and that other one about conservation of mass would prevent anything in the materail world from existing in infinite.


or are you trying to say that the universe isnt material and its all in our minds based off our individual persepectives? in wihich as the universe doesnt exist seperate from our minds, i guess it could be infinite.


IMO "whos to say the univedrse had a beginning or an end, whos to say its not infinite and has allways existed" is just as bad as "god did it"

IMO there needs to be more creative thinking concerning the properties of absolutely nothing.

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Mar 21 2014 05:52am
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
Mar 21 2014 07:16am
Quote (Azrad @ 21 Mar 2014 11:33)
craigs arguements go:

    [1]Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence
    [2]The universe has a beginning of its existence
    [3]∴The universe has a cause of its existence
There is lots of reason to think 1 is wrong. 2 might even be wrong. Yet he feels confident to just continue on to the 3 as if none of that mattered.
this is basically the argument for temporal finiteness (at least up until now) of the universe
there are better ones for it than the one given here but all of them have flaws
unfortunately the arguments for temporal infiniteness have flaws as well

    [1]An actual infinite cannot exist
    [2]An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite
    [3]∴An infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist
Again, there is no reason to believe 1 is correct, yet he just soldiers on to 3...
this clearly has more flaws than the previous one, what is most interesting is that if he would follow that logic he would claim to have proved that (the christian) god does not exist
or one could even consider that his argumentation is based on the non-existence of a god

    [1]A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
    [2]The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition
    [3]∴The temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite
And this one takes the cake. 1 is demonstrably false, but of course, he continues on without caring to 3.
argument [1] clearly has proven to be false and as indicated previously cantor actually considered the most infinite of all infinites to be what he considered to be god


don't really fancy discussing philosophy on jsp, so i leave it to the inline comments given

Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Mar 21 2014 08:26am
Quote (Ylem122 @ Mar 21 2014 04:43am)
so do you have any proof the universe in infinite?
No, I never said it was. It might be infinite, it might not be.

Quote (Ylem122 @ Mar 21 2014 04:43am)
I kinda feel as though that law about entrophy
Which we know is not true.

Quote (Ylem122 @ Mar 21 2014 04:43am)
and that other one about conservation of mass
Mass is not conserved, unless you consider the energy that is present in other forms as well (like energy stored in fields), which people like you generally do not consider (see your next statement below).

Quote (Ylem122 @ Mar 21 2014 04:43am)
would prevent anything in the materail world from existing in infinite.
They don't prevent it...


Member
Posts: 10,780
Joined: Jul 22 2011
Gold: 655.00
Mar 21 2014 09:22am
Quote (Azrad @ Mar 21 2014 10:26am)
No, I never said it was. It might be infinite, it might not be.

Which we know is not true.

Mass is not conserved, unless you consider the energy that is present in other forms as well (like energy stored in fields), which people like you generally do not consider (see your next statement below).

They don't prevent it...


a. ok, so its still a valid point despite your opinion.

b. how so?

c. of course.

d. how so?

This post was edited by Ylem122 on Mar 21 2014 09:25am
Member
Posts: 10,812
Joined: Oct 15 2009
Gold: Locked
Warn: 20%
Mar 21 2014 10:01am
a. Your logic is backwards on that one. I can't establish that the universe is infinite or not infinite, neither can Craig. Yet he uses it as a postulate. See the problem?

b. The second law is taken as true in classical mechanics only. Otherwise it is only statistical, meaning it is "true most of the time". However it is not always true.

d. So using the conservation of energy, you will never be able to establish that the universe is not infinite (if you want to try, go right ahead!). So we still can't tell if the universe is infinite or not. So saying it isn't infinite as a postulate is very dishonest (unless you are trying to do something like a proof by contradiction, which Craig is not). But dishonesty from Craig is nothing new. :( .

Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1234Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll