Posts: 8731
Threads: 425
Joined: October 7, 2014
Reputation:
37
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 1:54 am
(April 24, 2016 at 12:10 am)SteveII Wrote: (April 23, 2016 at 4:34 pm)IATIA Wrote: Why? The universe is simply a changed form of what it was 'before' the Big Bang'.
So, you don't think that the beginning of space-time and all physical reality (including physical laws) could be characterized as a new system? Please also explain how the laws of physics stop working at Planck time (before you get back to the singularity) and how the First Law of Thermodynamics mysteriously is exempt and will continue on not just to the singularity, but through to the other side.
In addition, please tell us what came 'before' the Big Bang that avoids the absurdity of a past infinite chain.
There was nothing before the big bang i wouldn't even all it that i would call it more of a expansion of space time from a singularity. To put it like so
a pin point of infinitesimally small matter that contains the whole universe in moments starts to expand because of how unstable it is. Given that outside of
that point literally nothing exists no space time matter etc. First few phases of the universe nothing existed as it was too hot time passes you have your first
elements hydrogen and helium given a little more time you have the formation of stars. All the first law of thermodynamics talks about is conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. So given that the universe is expanding therefor energy is being spread out evenly eventually that leads to heat death.
And there is no other side as the universe will be gone not with a whimper but total darkness and there is no other side unless you are speaking of parallel universes there is no point in going to one.
Atheism is a non-prophet organization join today.
Code: <iframe width="100%" height="450" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/255506953&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true"></iframe>
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 2:57 am
(April 23, 2016 at 3:21 pm)SteveII Wrote: (April 23, 2016 at 12:28 pm)pool the great Wrote: Absolutely. I'm completely against filling the gaps of knowledge with something as ambiguous as "God".
I also think I managed to show that even by theistic standards creationism is not possible.
It's interesting that the first three comments you got were encouraging and piled on the typical phrases that makes them happy to type. No one bothered to point out that your premises are misconceived and your reasoning is flawed.
If you want to believe that God (a first cause) is not needed, all you have to do is admit that the universe (or a predecessor) is infinite in the past--in spite that being logically absurd. If you want to "show" that creation is not possible (as you think you did) you would have to show a logical proof where the individual premises are supported and then concludes there is no God. No one has done that yet so good luck with that.
A car going at a constant speed of 3km/hr could travel for an infinite amount of time and still not overtake a truck going at a constant speed of 4km/hr. Does this show that infinity is a real thing?
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 3:20 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2016 at 3:24 am by robvalue.)
Calling infinite regression absurd doesn't make it impossible.
What is absurd is arguments that follow this formula:
1) I set up a bunch of incredibly simple rules that are meant to uniformly apply to all of reality and beyond by extrapolating banal observations, without demonstrating any of this to be true
2) My own rules produce an infinite regress
3) There cant be an infinite regress, because I say so, therefor my rules must actually be wrong in at least one case, invalidating my whole argument
4) There is only one exception to the rule, because I say so; it's not our reality, because I say so, and I am mates with it
Posts: 5356
Threads: 178
Joined: June 28, 2015
Reputation:
35
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 3:25 am
(April 24, 2016 at 3:20 am)robvalue Wrote: Calling infinite regression absurd doesn't make it impossible.
What is absurd is arguments that follow this formula:
1) I set up a bunch of incredibly simple rules that are meant to uniformly apply to all of reality and beyond by extrapolating banal observations, without demonstrating any of this to be true
2) My own rules produce an infinite regress
3) There cant be an infinite regress, because I say so, therefor my rules must actually be wrong in at least one case, invalidating my whole argument
4) There is only one exception to the rule, because I say so; it's not our reality, because I say so, and I am mates with it
I don't follow, are you saying that infinite regression is a real thing?
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 3:38 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2016 at 3:41 am by robvalue.)
No. I'm saying claiming it to be impossible is unevidenced. We don't know exactly how things may work outside of what we can observe and test. We can have reasonable speculation, but we can't make definitive statements as per these kinds of stupid regression therefor God arguments.
If someone makes the claim that it's impossible, it's up to them to make that case. Just screwing around with logic isn't enough to prove things about reality and beyond; and infinite regression isn't a logical problem anyway. It would be some sort of restraint that causes a problem.
Posts: 12
Threads: 0
Joined: April 20, 2016
Reputation:
1
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 4:07 am
(April 24, 2016 at 3:38 am)robvalue Wrote: No. I'm saying claiming it to be impossible is unevidenced. We don't know exactly how things may work outside of what we can observe and test. We can have reasonable speculation, but we can't make definitive statements as per these kinds of stupid regression therefor God arguments.
If someone makes the claim that it's impossible, it's up to them to make that case. Just screwing around with logic isn't enough to prove things about reality and beyond; and infinite regression isn't a logical problem anyway. It would be some sort of restraint that causes a problem.
You are correct, we just don't know.
If the universe just keeps changing state, expanding, contracting, that's infinite iterations, not infinite regress.
The ducks are not in a row.
In any case, Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.
In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion.
For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it.
It just exists across all time and space
The passage of time arises as an emergent property of certain specific configurations of the manifold.
A photon has no sense of time or direction. It can traverse any distance you care to imagine in no time whatsoever, with respect to its reference frame.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 4:13 am
Thank you, very good points 
The problem with simplistic philosophical arguments that are meant to prove something about reality is they assume we do know, 100%. And the conclusions rest entirely on this being the case. But we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not, so all we have is (at best) a valid logical argument, that may or may not be sound. Often, it's not even valid though and resorts to special pleading.
Posts: 6610
Threads: 73
Joined: May 31, 2014
Reputation:
56
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 4:26 am
Nevertheless, infinite regression is a major problem with God as well. Postulating God doesn't solve the problem all of a sudden anyway.
Posts: 29107
Threads: 218
Joined: August 9, 2014
Reputation:
155
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 4:40 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2016 at 4:44 am by robvalue.)
Indeed, no it doesn't. It just moves the "problem" (created by the thiest's own insistence) out of view.
As a sceptic I'm just happy to say maybe there is infinite regression, maybe not. Makes no odds. Maybe this reality is all, maybe not.
The model of our reality plus God sitting "outside" it is as arbitrary as any other. The theist never seems to consider that the next reality up might not be as amazing as they imagine, if there is one. Nor is it necessarily the last.
Posts: 12
Threads: 0
Joined: April 20, 2016
Reputation:
1
RE: My case against Creationism and Infinite regression
April 24, 2016 at 5:32 am
(April 24, 2016 at 4:13 am)robvalue Wrote: Thank you, very good points
The problem with simplistic philosophical arguments that are meant to prove something about reality is they assume we do know, 100%. And the conclusions rest entirely on this being the case. But we have no way of knowing whether they are true or not, so all we have is (at best) a valid logical argument, that may or may not be sound. Often, it's not even valid though and resorts to special pleading.
Exactly.
I do like the Forum very much and I often enjoy reading you guys, really it is I who should thank you for the entertainment.
Unfortunately my time is very limited and I am not able to interact that often.
Also English is not my first language and it takes me ages to translate.
All the best.
|
