An Infinite Past?

[mattbballman31]

Pretentious gobbledygook and perilously close to a Gish Gallop!

Oh, that hurt my feeeeelings. The admins must love this ad hominem style argument, Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for ignoring what I said. It's okay, though. Everyone can see you for the rhetorical fraud you are. But whatever.

The matter is straightforward: Vilenkin is a physicist arguing physics. Craig is not a physicist. Craig is a philosopher who is arguing physics, a field in which he has no expertise despite his pretensions.

General clap trap. Vilenkin even said Craig represented the physics just fine and dandy. Your rhetorical tricks don't work here, weirdo.

THIS is where Craig is coming from. He begins with his conclusions (in this instance the scripturally based doctrine of creatio ex nihilo) and attempts to fit his facts to into them.

Blah, blah, blah. Bulverism, bulverism, bulverism. More general clap-trap. Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.

Craig is an evangelist appropriating information from an area in which he has no expertise (i.e. physics) in order to sell his product

This DOESN'T matter, Sophist. Not one whit. Are you scared to get into specifics, or something? You're so easy to refute, it's funny. I feel like I'm in a Logic 101 class and the assignment is 'Spot the Fallacy'.

Push the laugh-track! lol.

Ah! So Craig is a sincere charlatan. Is this what your'e saying?

LOL. You don't even understand simple words of the English language.

At no point have I referred to Craig as: . These are your

It's called hyperbole you funda-literalist. More rhetoric. Vilenkin said Craig was fine in the physics; and what Craig said theologically about God he didn't have an opinion on, because it's out of area of expertise. Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead an ignore that.

Dangerously close to that philosophy/science frontier, aren't we!?! Science disagrees with Craig's supernatural explanation PHILOSOPHICALLY. Saying 'the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely' is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement ABOUT the physics, ding-dong.

http://arizonaatheist.blogspot.com/2...s-for-god.html

I'll indulge my masochistic tendencies some time this week-end.

"in these here parts 'y'all'

You don't even know what Bulverism is. Wow. How can I trust anything you say?

YOU define it, you used it! In your #357 you said: natural vs. supernatural

I have to define supernatural? Am I talking to a 5 year old, or is this more sophistical, rhetorical flap-doodle? You sound like the trash-man that says, 'I'm not a trash-man; I'm into waste-management!'

Either way the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

Such a confused rant!

Stunning critique! Eloquent its brevity.

What you care about in this context is irrelevant! If you want expertise on a subject then go to the experts, not the also-rans with an agenda.

Craig already did, moron. Vilenkin said it was fine. This is clear to everyone but you.

Not

Right, and this is what makes me think you're half-baked. It's not irrelevant, period.



Nice philosophical statement not based on new truths about nature, contradictory dingbat.

Only science has the methodology to do that.

Woohoo. Another one!

This explains why even a great mind like Aristotle was wrong regarding nearly every conclusion he reached about the physical universe; he had insufficient knowledge of the natural world upon which to base his arguments.

Another one!

Because you're a clod. You're the flattered elk about to be shot for dinner.

The mods seem to appreciate your abusive ad hominem style, it must be said. Personally, I find it immature.

YOU STARTED IT!



It's a new profile, birdbrain. Why would I fib about something so dumb? JPH? What the heck are you talking about,

Actually, I find shunya one of the most articulate and knowledgeable debaters in these forums - despite the occasional typo's - so I guess he's been effective.

Theologyweb's own Batman and Robin. Saving Gotham from the villains! Now, I know you're high on something.

Love ya!

[JonathanL]

[shunyadragon]

imL

Actually Wikipedia has an ok explanation of space time and the 'observer.' I reviewed another article, but it was a little heavy and deep in math. The whole article has more information.

Side note: For a constructive dialogue to take place it may be best to ignore problem children.



A number of experiments have been carried out that demonstrate that even between different observers time is not a constant attribute of our universe.

[OingoBoingo]

Actually, I find shunya one of the most articulate and knowledgeable debaters in these forums - despite the occasional typo's - so I guess he's been effective.

[JimL]

Oh, that hurt my feeeeelings. The admins must love this ad hominem style argument, Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for ignoring what I said. It's okay, though. Everyone can see you for the rhetorical fraud you are. But whatever.



General clap trap. Vilenkin even said Craig represented the physics just fine and dandy. Your rhetorical tricks don't work here, weirdo.



Blah, blah, blah. Bulverism, bulverism, bulverism. More general clap-trap. Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric.



This DOESN'T matter, Sophist. Not one whit. Are you scared to get into specifics, or something? You're so easy to refute, it's funny. I feel like I'm in a Logic 101 class and the assignment is 'Spot the Fallacy'.



Push the laugh-track! lol.



LOL. You don't even understand simple words of the English language.



It's called hyperbole you funda-literalist. More rhetoric. Vilenkin said Craig was fine in the physics; and what Craig said theologically about God he didn't have an opinion on, because it's out of area of expertise. Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead an ignore that.



Dangerously close to that philosophy/science frontier, aren't we!?! Science disagrees with Craig's supernatural explanation PHILOSOPHICALLY. Saying 'the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely' is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement ABOUT the physics, ding-dong.



I'll indulge my masochistic tendencies some time this week-end.



You don't even know what Bulverism is. Wow. How can I trust anything you say?



I have to define supernatural? Am I talking to a 5 year old, or is this more sophistical, rhetorical flap-doodle? You sound like the trash-man that says, 'I'm not a trash-man; I'm into waste-management!'

Either way the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.



Stunning critique! Eloquent its brevity.



Craig already did, moron. Vilenkin said it was fine. This is clear to everyone but you.



Right, and this is what makes me think you're half-baked. It's not irrelevant, period.





Nice philosophical statement not based on new truths about nature, contradictory dingbat.



Woohoo. Another one!



Another one!



Because you're a clod. You're the flattered elk about to be shot for dinner.



YOU STARTED IT!





It's a new profile, birdbrain. Why would I fib about something so dumb? JPH? What the heck are you talking about,



Theologyweb's own Batman and Robin. Saving Gotham from the villains! Now, I know you're high on something.

Love ya!

Obviously you have nothing of interest to say Matt. Are you here to discuss something on an intellectual level or merely to engage in ad hominim attacks. The only thing you've accomplished with this post is to make yourself look like a jerk.

[JimL]

imL

Actually Wikipedia has an ok explanation of space time and the 'observer.' I reviewed another article, but it was a little heavy and deep in math. The whole article has more information.

Side note: For a constructive dialogue to take place it may be best to ignore problem children.



A number of experiments have been carried out that demonstrate that even between different observers time is not a constant attribute of our universe.

Yes, but in what way does time differ in the pocket universes than it does in the Greater Cosmos. The birth of pocket universes such as our own are events which take place in the greater Cosmos in the same way as events take place in the pocket universes themselves. Something happens, there is a process of change that must take place in the Greater Cosmos in order for pocket universes to inflate. If that process isn't taking place in time, then how can it be a process that is taking place? In other words, with regards to time, how are the events that take place within the space of the Greater Cosmos any different than the events that take place within the space of our own universe?

[Tassman]

Oh, that hurt my feeeeelings. The admins must love this ad hominem style argument, Blah, blah, blah. Thanks for ignoring what I said. It's okay, though. Everyone can see you for the rhetorical fraud you are. But whatever.

Indeed! Everyone can see the rhetorical frauds in this discussion for who they are.

General clap trap. Vilenkin even said Craig represented the physics just fine and dandy. Your rhetorical tricks don't work here, weirdo.

But NOT the conclusions. Craig arrived at an unwarranted theological conclusion based on his committed religious presuppositions, not a correct understanding of Vilenkin's arguments.

And "weirdo!!" Yet you claim not to be the one into ad hominems......RIGHT!

This DOESN'T matter, Sophist. Not one whit. Are you scared to get into specifics, or something? You're so easy to refute, it's funny. I feel like I'm in a Logic 101 class and the assignment is 'Spot the Fallacy'.

So you are not concerned that Craig is appropriating and misusing information from an area in which he has no expertise (i.e. physics) in order to sell his product? Personally, I think it is misleading and dishonest, but I guess from your perspective, "whatever it takes" is OK.

It's called hyperbole you funda-literalist. More rhetoric. Vilenkin said Craig was fine in the physics; and what Craig said theologically about God he didn't have an opinion on, because it's out of area of expertise. Blah, blah, blah. Go ahead an ignore that.

These are your words, not mine.

Dangerously close to that philosophy/science frontier, aren't we!?! Science disagrees with Craig's supernatural explanation PHILOSOPHICALLY. Saying 'the naturalistic scenario is incredibly more likely' is a PHILOSOPHICAL statement ABOUT the physics, ding-dong.

I have to define supernatural? Am I talking to a 5 year old, or is this more sophistical, rhetorical flap-doodle? You sound like the trash-man that says, 'I'm not a trash-man; I'm into waste-management!'

Yes! You asked me

Craig already did, moron. Vilenkin said it was fine. This is clear to everyone but you.

Nope. The expert in physics is the experienced, qualified physicist, NOT the philosopher/apologist furthering his agenda by misappropriating information from a discipline in which he has no expertise.

Right, and this is what makes me think you're half-baked. It's not irrelevant, period.

You have given me no reason to take you, or your opinions, seriously.

Nice philosophical statement not based on new truths about nature, contradictory dingbat.

Woohoo. Another one!

Another one!

Because you're a clod. You're the flattered elk about to be shot for dinner.

YOU STARTED IT!

But you are not into ad hominems right.

It's a new profile, birdbrain. Why would I fib about something so dumb?

Then please explain how you were able to make the following comment about shunya after just three posts, none of which were interactive with him:

I have ever talked to on this forum, and probably the most annoying person I have ever talked to on philosophy or science. Probably a really nice guy. But, yea. No. lol. I agree: I don't think he is dishonest. I think he is a sincerely deluded person that has an inflated view of his own intelligence. A text-book case of cognitive dissonance: being ignorant and unaware of it. He brushes aside entire swaths of thought with sweeping, oversimplified statements, that are about 35.78 % on topic, all through the foggy lens of sentences riddled with grammar errors. He is what I think of when I read Sartre's: Hell is other people

JPH? What the heck are you talking about,

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but in what way does time differ in the pocket universes than it does in the Greater Cosmos. The birth of pocket universes such as our own are events which take place in the greater Cosmos in the same way as events take place in the pocket universes themselves. Something happens, there is a process of change that must take place in the Greater Cosmos in order for pocket universes to inflate. If that process isn't taking place in time, then how can it be a process that is taking place? In other words, with regards to time, how are the events that take place within the space of the Greater Cosmos any different than the events that take place within the space of our own universe?

My explanation is only a general understanding and does not explain the math and science behind the theories and models involved.

The environment of the Multiverse greater cosmos is not the same as the bubble universe we live in. It is a Quantum Vacuum World where time-space emerges as bubble universes. At present a number of models are evolving to explain the greater cosmos, but the fundamental foundation is Quantum Mechanics, and the concepts of the time-space nature of universes evolved from Einstein's work and the Theory of Relativity, where time and space are emergent qualities of our universe and all possible universes emerging from a Quantum World without the qualities of time and space. The Bubble universe is filled with galaxies and black holes.

I believe there is an interesting relationship that speaks of similarities. I believe that in the Bubble universe the matter, energy, and (something?) called dark energy and matter, expand through a matrix of the Quantum Vacuum World that has the same qualities as the greater cosmos. The Quantum Vacuum World we can observe in the background zero point of our universe has not time-space qualities in and of itself. It is essentially the world our universe is expanding through. I can hypothetically see burps of time-space occurring as failed universes in brief time-space events.

The following is my interpretation and understanding of the nature of the beginning of bubble universes and time-space as we know it. The event of the entanglement (collapse?)in the Quantum Vacuum World to form the singularity and emergent Universe as the 'Big Bang' is instantaneous when conditions are right in the greater cosmos, and time space begins at that instant.

The problem with any question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite/finite or eternal/temporal is unanswerable in a world without time-space described well by Hawkin's 'No boundary world.'

[JimL]

My explanation is only a general understanding and does not explain the math and science behind the theories and models involved.

The environment of the Multiverse greater cosmos is not the same as the bubble universe we live in.

That may or may not be true, we have no idea. A so called bubble universe could emerge from out of our own bubble universe for all we would know.

It is a Quantum Vacuum World where time-space emerges as bubble universes. At present a number of models are evolving to explain the greater cosmos, but the fundamental foundation is Quantum Mechanics, and the concepts of the time-space nature of universes evolved from Einstein's work and the Theory of Relativity, where time and space are emergent qualities of our universe and all possible universes emerging from a Quantum World without the qualities of time and space. The Bubble universe is filled with galaxies and black holes.

I don't know that the qualities of time/space are emergent qualities that pertain only to emergent universes in Einsteins theory. Time is emergent in that sense for any thing that begins to exist, but that doesn't mean that what we call time didn't exist previously to that things beginning. You may be correct, I don't know, but simply calling the Greater cosmos a quantum vacuum world doesn't in itself explain away time and the nature of change which must take place within it for baby universes to spawn. You say the bubble universes are filled with galaxies and black holes, but the Greater cosmos, however defined, must change in order to spawn those universes, and change is what we associate with time. Also, I am not sure that the bubble universes should be defined as being things distinct from, or outside of the Cosmos or quantum world.

I believe there is an interesting relationship that speaks of similarities. I believe that in the Bubble universe the matter, energy, and (something?) called dark energy and matter, expand through a matrix of the Quantum Vacuum World that has the same qualities as the greater cosmos. The Quantum Vacuum World we can observe in the background zero point of our universe has not time-space qualities in and of itself. It is essentially the world our universe is expanding through. I can hypothetically see burps of time-space occurring as failed universes in brief time-space events.

Okay.

The following is my interpretation and understanding of the nature of the beginning of bubble universes and time-space as we know it. The event of the entanglement (collapse?)in the Quantum Vacuum World to form the singularity and emergent Universe as the 'Big Bang' is instantaneous when conditions are right in the greater cosmos, and time space begins at that instant.

And my point is that the bolded above would suggest that time exists before the instantaneous event of the "big Bang". What does when conditions are right mean, if not at the time when conditions are right?

The problem with any question of whether the greater cosmos is infinite/finite or eternal/temporal is unanswerable in a world without time-space described well by Hawkin's 'No boundary world.'

Not sure what that means.

[shunyadragon]

That may or may not be true, we have no idea. A so called bubble universe could emerge from out of our own bubble universe for all we would know.

Well, if it happens we will know it.

I don't know that the qualities of time/space are emergent qualities that pertain only to emergent universes in Einsteins theory. Time is emergent in that sense for any thing that begins to exist, but that doesn't mean that what we call time didn't exist previously to that things beginning. You may be correct, I don't know, but simply calling the Greater cosmos a quantum vacuum world doesn't in itself explain away time and the nature of change which must take place within it for baby universes to spawn. You say the bubble universes are filled with galaxies and black holes, but the Greater cosmos, however defined, must change in order to spawn those universes, and change is what we associate with time. Also, I am not sure that the bubble universes should be defined as being things distinct from, or outside of the Cosmos or quantum world.

Well, to some extent it is obvious that I do not know either. Actually all I can do is discuss and learn about how physicists and cosmologists the time-space concept in our universe and the multiverse. I do believe that the concept of space-time being emergent qualities of universes is well established based on our knowledge of Quantum Mechanics, but for sure, in reality I do not know. The article I previously cited gives some basis for the time-space relationship between the universe and the multiverse.

And my point is that the bolded above would suggest that time exists before the instantaneous event of the "big Bang". What does when conditions are right mean, if not at the time when conditions are right?

At present the 'conditions being right' is unknown, but there are some hints in what is known about Quantum Mechanics, about its inherent instability under some conditions that can potentially lead to entanglement, emergent Quantum gravity, time and space, and the formation of a singularity.

Not sure what that means.

If space nor time exist in the Quantum Vacuum World there is no possibilities of beginnings nor endings of anything, out side the formation of bubble universes.

[mattbballman31]

But NOT the conclusions. Craig arrived at an unwarranted theological conclusion based on his committed religious presuppositions, not a correct understanding of Vilenkin's arguments.

And Yet you claim not to be the one into ad hominems......RIGHT!

These are your words, not mine.

No. But it proves that the expansion of the universe must have had a beginning. You can evade the theorem by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time.

That is why Aguirre & Gratton and Carroll & Chen had to assume that the arrow of time changes at t = 0. This makes the moment t = 0 rather special. I would say no less special than a true beginning of the universe.

Yes! You asked me

What is this blabber? Okay, I agree with your definition as you put it:

Regardless, the point remains: Any claims of non-natural/supernatural occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences, NOT philosophy.

Okay, so God can be studied scientifically? The natural sciences study the non-natural? What scientist can you quote to back that up?

Nope. The expert in physics is the experienced, qualified physicist, NOT the philosopher/apologist furthering his agenda by misappropriating information from a discipline in which he has no expertise.

McFly? McFly? Vilenkin already said Craig represented him fine!! What are you blathering about?

You have given me no reason to take you, or your opinions, seriously.

Empiricism. Philosophy.

And without a true premise a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion - no matter how valid the argument may be.

Truism. More philosophy. Not scientifically based. See how oblivious you are?

Always in philosophy the deduced conclusions can be no more than restatements of existing knowledge.

Yep. Philosophy has gone absolutely nowhere since Aristotle. So ignorant.

Hence virtually every conclusion he arrived at about the physical universe has been shown to be wrong.

Why should I care about this red herring?

He had insufficient or incorrect knowledge of the natural world upon which to base his arguments; only science has the methodology to acquire new knowledge.

More beautiful philosophical statements, you deluded philosopher, you.

But you are not into ad hominems right.

Then please explain how you were able to make the following comment about shunya after just three posts, none of which were interactive with him:

http://the-anointed-one.com/hold.htm

Oh, JP Holding!!! I love that guy. Thanks for the compliment!

[Tassman]

in his . THIS is what the likes of Craig choose to ignore.



http://www.mukto-mona.com/science/ph...om_nothing.pdf

I exaggerated

You put offensive words into my mouth that I never uttered. I did NOT say or imply that Craig is: These are your words, not mine and I take exception to being dragged down to your level of personal vitriol.

No,

Right. All Craig is saying is that if the expansion had a beginning, then PROBABLY the universe had one

I can quote for you, dingy.

Not at the "point" under discussion.

What is this blabber? Okay, I agree with your definition as you put it:
Okay, so God can be studied scientifically? The natural sciences study the non-natural? What scientist can you quote to back that up?

The notion of a supernatural entity such as God cannot be shown to exist or studied scientifically. Claims of ANY occurrences in the natural universe are the province of the natural sciences. There are no credible claims of non-natural or supernatural occurrences.

McFly? McFly? Vilenkin already said Craig represented him fine!! What are you blathering about?

Why try rational dialogue?

I'm unaware of any rational dialogue emanating from you.

Why should I care about this red herring?

Already did, dingy. I've talked to him already under another username in the past. Read that slow, so it sinks in.

REALLY!

Oh, JP Holding!!! I love that guy. Thanks for the compliment!

This is the JP Holding you implied you knew nothing about. Remember your:

Obviously you have nothing of interest to say Matt. Are you here to discuss something on an intellectual level or merely to engage in ad hominim attacks. The only thing you've accomplished with this post is to make yourself look like a jerk.

[JimL]

Couldn't agree more, Jim! What is it with some of these people?

The point is that you don't ask for it Tass, I'm only accommodating those that do. I agree though, thats probably not the best way to go about it either.

[37818]

Yes, this is true, but the uncaused self-existence may possibly be the cosmos it self governed by Natural Law.

Explain how [give the logic] the cosmos governed by Natural Law constitute uncaused self-existence. Please explain how there is not to be any distinction between cosmos and existence, and the things which do exist, that is, the things which do cosmos.

[JimL]

Explain how [give the logic] the cosmos governed by Natural Law constitute uncaused self-existence. Please explain how there is not to be any distinction between cosmos and existence, and the things which do exist, that is, the things which do cosmos.

What is it you want him to explain? He is merely suggesting that the Cosmos may itself be that which is the eternal necessary existence self governed by its own nature. The reason that there wouldn't be any distinction between the Cosmos and the temporally existing particulars thereof would be because the temporally existing particulars would merely be changes taking place in the whole. In other words he is merely suggesting that all of existence could be one thing, there wouldn't be 2 distinctive existences, one the creator of the other, there would be one existence which is sustained and evolves in accordance with its own nature, its own physical laws.