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
See more
See less

Infinity and Kalam

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

  • Originally posted by seer View Post

    Nonsense, your link:

    A universe with a beginning begs the vexing question: Just how did it begin? Vilenkin’s answer is by no means confirmed, and perhaps never can be, but it’s still the best solution he’s heard so far: Maybe our fantastic, glorious universe spontaneously arose from nothing at all. This heretical statement clashes with common sense, which admittedly fails us when talking about the birth of the universe, an event thought to occur at unfathomably high energies. It also flies in the face of the Roman philosopher Lucretius, who argued more than 2,000 years ago that “nothing can be created from nothing...

    "The birth of the universe", "a universe with a beginning", "spontaneously arose from nothing at all." Those describe a creation event. And why even quote Lucretius? Because Lucretius' nothing is literally nothing. And that is exactly what Vilenkin said, that the universe was created from literally nothing. So I will ask again, where did he say that the universe came about from a previous quantum state - be specific please. I'll be waiting....
    Indeed a vexing question with no foreseeable resolution,

    Again there is no objective verifiable evidence that can falsify whether our universe or the multiverse had an absolute beginning or is eternal and infinite. None of the currently proposed theories nor hypothesis by scientists concerning the possible origins and nature of our universe propose any sort of absolute beginning without a preexisting Quantum World called the Quantum Vacuum.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-18-2021, 09:38 PM.
    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

      Indeed a vexing question with no foreseeable resolution,

      Again there is no objective verifiable evidence that can falsify whether our universe or the multiverse had an absolute beginning or is eternal and infinite. None of the currently proposed theories nor hypothesis by scientists concerning the possible origins and nature of our universe propose any sort of absolute beginning without a preexisting Quantum World called the Quantum Vacuum.
      No, we have evidence that this universe began 13 billion years ago. There is no evidence of anything else or before. Including a preexisting quantum world.
      Last edited by seer; 11-19-2021, 07:56 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


      • I just watched another video with Vilinken. and he used the phrase "in some platonic sense" again, speaking of the prior existence of the laws of quantum mechanics.

        Things can only exist platonically in a mind. Agree or disagree?

        Also, would you say that he is using that term sort of metaphorically? That is, it's loosely referring to the Platonic Realm of Forms? It's like he doesn't want to go there, but that's the closest idea he can use to describe the pre-existence of these laws.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Machinist View Post
          I just watched another video with Vilinken. and he used the phrase "in some platonic sense" again, speaking of the prior existence of the laws of quantum mechanics.

          Things can only exist platonically in a mind. Agree or disagree?
          Agreed...

          Also, would you say that he is using that term sort of metaphorically? That is, it's loosely referring to the Platonic Realm of Forms? It's like he doesn't want to go there, but that's the closest idea he can use to describe the pre-existence of these laws.
          Correct... And his position is very close to creation Ex Nihilo, if not Ex Nihilo....

          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, we have evidence that this universe began 13 billion years ago.
            What evidence? Still waiting . . .

            Please cite the specific 'objective verifiable evidence' to back up your claim of a beginning brom absolute nothing based on an ancient religious apologetic Kalam agenda not science.


            Please avoid 'arguing from ignorance' to justify your claim.

            As far as the objective verifiable evidence all we have is Quantum Mechanics and a number of different theories and hypothesis from different cosmologists concerning the origin and nature of our universe and possible multiverse. All agree that there was a Quantum World existence that our universe arose from, but differ in some aspects, because of the lack of objective verifiable evidence that can specifically determine the nature of the origins of our universe.

            There is no evidence of anything else or before. Including a preexisting quantum world.
            Vilenkin, Guth and others believe there is. Please avoid selectively and unethically citing Vilenkin and Guth to justify your claim.


            As I said before; please avoid 'arguing from ignorance' to support your assertions, and present the evidence.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-19-2021, 11:26 AM.
            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 seer View Post
              No, we have evidence that this universe began 13 billion years ago. There is no evidence of anything else or before. Including a preexisting quantum world.
              The evidence that this universe began 13 billion years ago is simply the lack of evidence that anything existed before then, along with the inability to extrapolate backwards beyond that point using the laws of physics as we currently know them.

              But of course, our knowledge of the laws of physics isn't necessarily complete, and there is always a lack of evidence for something until we find evidence for it. The idea that "nothing comes from nothing" yields a pretty strong intuition that there was something before the big bang, but if you give up on "nothing comes from nothing", then you have to accept that it's possible that the universe came from nothing.

              All of which leaves me right where I started. It's possible that the first premise of Kalam is wrong, and it's possible that the second premise is wrong. I don't even have to decide which one is more likely wrong in order to reject the conclusion.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                The evidence that this universe began 13 billion years ago is simply the lack of evidence that anything existed before then, along with the inability to extrapolate backwards beyond that point using the laws of physics as we currently know them.
                Well I'm glad you agreed there is a lack of evidence for anything prior. So as the evidence stands we have a finite universe with a beginning.

                But of course, our knowledge of the laws of physics isn't necessarily complete, and there is always a lack of evidence for something until we find evidence for it. The idea that "nothing comes from nothing" yields a pretty strong intuition that there was something before the big bang, but if you give up on "nothing comes from nothing", then you have to accept that it's possible that the universe came from nothing.
                That seems to be Vilenkin's position, sounds a lot like creation Ex Nihilo...Of course he would say that "no cause is needed."


                All of which leaves me right where I started. It's possible that the first premise of Kalam is wrong, and it's possible that the second premise is wrong. I don't even have to decide which one is more likely wrong in order to reject the conclusion.
                Except no - with the evidence we have now, cause and effect is alive and well in the universe. I see no rational reason to reject that. Therefore no good reason to reject premise one.

                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 shunyadragon View Post

                  As I said before; please avoid 'arguing from ignorance' to support your assertions, and present the evidence.
                  So if I don't believe that unicorns exist is that also an argument from ignorance?

                  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

                    Well I'm glad you agreed there is a lack of evidence for anything prior. So as the evidence stands we have a finite universe with a beginning.



                    That seems to be Vilenkin's position, sounds a lot like creation Ex Nihilo...Of course he would say that "no cause is needed."




                    Except no - with the evidence we have now, cause and effect is alive and well in the universe. I see no rational reason to reject that. Therefore no good reason to reject premise one.
                    I see any argument for premise two as evidence against premise one. And vice versa.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                      I see any argument for premise two as evidence against premise one. And vice versa.
                      ????
                      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

                        ????
                        Any evidence supporting the idea that the universe began to exist, makes me consider it more likely that something can begin to exist without a cause.

                        Any evidence supporting the idea that whatever begins to exist has a cause, makes me consider it more likely that the universe has always existed.

                        I don't know if I can make it any more clear than that.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post

                          So if I don't believe that unicorns exist is that also an argument from ignorance?
                          As I said before; please avoid 'arguing from ignorance' to support your assertions, and present the evidence.
                          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 Stoic View Post

                            Any evidence supporting the idea that the universe began to exist, makes me consider it more likely that something can begin to exist without a cause.

                            Any evidence supporting the idea that whatever begins to exist has a cause, makes me consider it more likely that the universe has always existed.

                            I don't know if I can make it any more clear than that.
                            OK, I get it. Though one wonders how something could come into being without a cause. As far as as having a cause, why not God? Since there is good reason to believe that matter and energy can't be past eternal.

                            https://thinkingtobelieve.com/2012/0...d-a-beginning/
                            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 shunyadragon View Post

                              As I said before; please avoid 'arguing from ignorance' to support your assertions, and present the evidence.
                              Again, if I don't believe that unicorns exist is that also an argument from ignorance? Yes or no? And again there are reason to think that matter and energy can't be past eternal, even though your RELIGION requires it: https://inference-review.com/article...f-the-universe
                              Last edited by seer; 11-20-2021, 05:36 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


                              • In this context does "nothing" mean "no space"?

                                I'm thinking of the 1' x 1' x1' cube of space before me here. That space. Has it always been there?

                                And "quantum vacuum"...does this mean just space that is empty of all quantum stuff, all forces, etc? But the space itself is there?

                                Or are you talking about an absolute nothing where there is not even space?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X