MuslimScholar....

If universe was static for a period of time, then I would say it does need an external force.

If it was however only not changing at time zero, but changed as soon as it got passed time zero, then why can't it be something internal to the universe that caused it to change? Why can't it be set to change at time zero...so it as if it's already in motion/changing, just that time zero of course would be it's initial state.

Simply repeating your premises doesn't make sense. You have to explain why the other explanation is not logical.

(March 26, 2013 at 10:23 am)MysticKnight Wrote: MuslimScholar....

If universe was static for a period of time, then I would say it does need an external force.

If it was however only not changing at time zero, but changed as soon as it got passed time zero, then why can't it be something internal to the universe that caused it to change? Why can't it be set to change at time zero...so it as if it's already in motion/changing, just that time zero of course would be it's initial state.

Simply repeating your premises doesn't make sense. You have to explain why the other explanation is not logical.

You are confusing yourself
forget about the scientific meaning of time
1-The Universe was not changing
2- The universe is changing
It cannot change by itself unless it is always changing

Your statement is just playing with words, the creation of time itself can be the trigger which means the same thing.

---

(March 26, 2013 at 7:41 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 7:15 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: The answer is very simple, just include that empty space (or whatever) in U
then U(including empty space) had a start as well
An external force must start this empty space to change.

Talk about moving goalposts!!
Empty space had a start? What was there before there was nothing?

God

If there was nothing, it will remain like that forever
Existence is the opposite of Non-Existence

Existence must be valid before and after
However the Universe itself can be valid or not
but to change its state an external force (withing existence) must change it.

---

Let's add a statement (or another view)
The number of events (any event) must be finite (just use the same proof)
So there must be a first event
This event (whatever is it) will need an "eventer" (doer)
This doer is the creator of the first event and he must be external to the universe ............................

The whole proof is based on the definition of Paradox or "Mutually exclusive propositions" or "disjoint"
If you are going to refuse this only premises, you need to prove it!
Or just assume that this proof is not for you!!!!!!!!!!!!

(March 27, 2013 at 3:29 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote:

(March 26, 2013 at 7:41 am)pocaracas Wrote: Talk about moving goalposts!!
Empty space had a start? What was there before there was nothing?

God

If there was nothing, it will remain like that forever
Existence is the opposite of Non-Existence

Existence must be valid before and after
However the Universe itself can be valid or not
but to change its state an external force (withing existence) must change it.

But nothing is not static... didn't you watch the video?


Here's an alternate explanation for your observations, but this one is somewhat more grounded on current understanding of physics, even if it has some speculations involved:
Empty space has zero average energy, but locally it can have positive and negative energies.

Empty space stretches out to infinity... actually, it's spacetime that stretches out to infinity... plus and minus... and you can arbitrarily put the zero where you want. You can put the spatial zero where you want, as well as the temporal zero. It doesn't matter where you put the zero, but that doesn't mean that spaceTime starts at that zero that you defined.

The total energy content of this spacetime is zero.
But locally, it can fluctuate. On rare occasions, it fluctuates so much it generates a lot of energy (and corresponding anti-energy) and we call that a Universe. Since this spaceTime nothingness stretches out to infinity, there may be an infinite number of Universes out there... but we just can't know for sure.

We know there is negative energy, because we can detect it's influence. When anti-matter comes close to matter they annihilate each other and emit two photons. We can measure these photons, which are just light.

We like to think of ourselves as having positive energy, but, again, plus and minus is just a convention. There may be galaxies out there which are entirely composed of anti-matter, and we observe them just the same as if they were made of what we call normal matter. If anyone is alive there and wondering about these things, they will probably consider their matter the one with positive energy, and our with negative energy. It's arbitrary.
What counts is that, when you sum it all up, you arrive at a big round juicy ZERO.

Nothing, empty space, has zero energy..... on average.

Now, please, do tell me how do we require a divine entity to account for these fluctuations of empty space.
And then tell me where/how did this entity come from.

It seems that Muslim Scholar is using Aristotle's unmoved mover inappropriately. Aristotle had no problem with an eternal universe. Aristotle was concerned with motion as it is now. My finger is moving toward the keyboard, the finger moves because there is an arm behind it. The arm moves because of the signals of the brain. The brain chooses because the soul is exercising its will. The end. Our souls are unmoved movers. Aristotle then looks at the stars rotating around. He thinks, "same process?". Stars have motion because something is giving them motion, no infinite regress, ergo God. However this proof is absolutely terrible. If Aristotle's physics wasn't so off perhaps he could have made a different proof or something, but friction or lack thereof really wasn't understood yet.

Anyway, I'm a theist, but unless you halt time, the argument will never work.

(March 27, 2013 at 6:23 am)pocaracas Wrote: But nothing is not static... didn't you watch the video?

Here's an alternate explanation for your observations, but this one is somewhat more grounded on current understanding of physics, even if it has some speculations involved:
Empty space has zero average energy, but locally it can have positive and negative energies.

Empty space stretches out to infinity... actually, it's spacetime that stretches out to infinity... plus and minus... and you can arbitrarily put the zero where you want. You can put the spatial zero where you want, as well as the temporal zero. It doesn't matter where you put the zero, but that doesn't mean that spaceTime starts at that zero that you defined.

The total energy content of this spacetime is zero.
But locally, it can fluctuate. On rare occasions, it fluctuates so much it generates a lot of energy (and corresponding anti-energy) and we call that a Universe. Since this spaceTime nothingness stretches out to infinity, there may be an infinite number of Universes out there... but we just can't know for sure.

We know there is negative energy, because we can detect it's influence. When anti-matter comes close to matter they annihilate each other and emit two photons. We can measure these photons, which are just light.

We like to think of ourselves as having positive energy, but, again, plus and minus is just a convention. There may be galaxies out there which are entirely composed of anti-matter, and we observe them just the same as if they were made of what we call normal matter. If anyone is alive there and wondering about these things, they will probably consider their matter the one with positive energy, and our with negative energy. It's arbitrary.
What counts is that, when you sum it all up, you arrive at a big round juicy ZERO.

Nothing, empty space, has zero energy..... on average.

Now, please, do tell me how do we require a divine entity to account for these fluctuations of empty space.
And then tell me where/how did this entity come from.

You forgot a very important point in my proof.
Scientific theories can be proved wrong or incomplete in the future,
My premises are much stronger (Actually nothing can be more strong than that)

By Logic we can prove that space-time is not infinite (Nothing can be infinite at all)

It is proved that events itself cannot be infinite, so there must be a first event.

You don't need to distract yourself with scientific theories, to refute the proof you need to find a flaw in it, or prove that its premises are false.

The premises are impossible to be false, as it is only an Axiom.

---

(March 27, 2013 at 7:35 pm)Tex Wrote: It seems that Muslim Scholar is using Aristotle's unmoved mover inappropriately. Aristotle had no problem with an eternal universe.

He was wrong

Quote:Aristotle was concerned with motion as it is now. My finger is moving toward the keyboard, the finger moves because there is an arm behind it. The arm moves because of the signals of the brain. The brain chooses because the soul is exercising its will. The end. Our souls are unmoved movers. Aristotle then looks at the stars rotating around. He thinks, "same process?". Stars have motion because something is giving them motion, no infinite regress, ergo God. However this proof is absolutely terrible. If Aristotle's physics wasn't so off perhaps he could have made a different proof or something, but friction or lack thereof really wasn't understood yet.

Cause and effect is a characteristic of the universe, what is outside the universe can be something different, we don't know!

"He was wrong"

Then don't use his proof? It wasn't designed to function in the way you're using it, which is why they are punching holes in it like fat people on trampolines.

"Cause and effect is a characteristic of the universe, what is outside the universe can be something different, we don't know!"

I figured God was orderly. God is either orderly or he's not. If disorderly, everything created should be chaotic. If orderly, things should follow a set predictable formula. I look around the world. I see predictable formula.

Even more so, if God weren't orderly, we couldn't use philosophy/logic, an ordered discipline, to reach knowledge of his existence.

(March 28, 2013 at 2:16 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: By Logic we can prove that space-time is not infinite (Nothing can be infinite at all)

Except your god, right?

Quote: Even more so, if God weren't orderly, we couldn't use philosophy/logic, an ordered discipline, to reach knowledge of his existence.

You can't.

(March 28, 2013 at 2:16 am)Muslim Scholar Wrote: Cause and effect is a characteristic of the universe, what is outside the universe can be something different, we don't know!

Bolded then italicized so you might recognize the point at which you went off the rails.

@Ryan

I'll assume you're a troll. Carry on.