God the middleman

[doubtingmerle]

And that is why most cosmologists believe it started as a singularity.

I have recently read, The End of Everything by leading astrophyicist Katie Mack. She writes:

The singularity is one hypothesis for what might have started everything off, but we can't really be sure...There might have been a singularity. [pg 32, 35]
​

Like all physicists, she thinks it began very, very small. But there is a question about whether it truly started at zero.

Also I found this on the web:

The Hawking Singularity Theorem added to this by stating that a space-like singularity can occur when matter is forcibly compressed to a point, causing the rules that govern matter to break down. Hawking traced this back in time to the Big Bang, which he claimed was a point of infinite density. However, Hawking later revised this to claim that general relativity breaks down at times prior to the Big Bang, and hence no singularity could be predicted by it.

Some more recent proposals also suggest that the Universe did not begin as a singularity. These includes theories like Loop Quantum Gravity, which attempts to unify the laws of quantum physics with gravity. This theory states that, due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which gravity no longer continues to increase, or that interpenetrating particle waves mask gravitational effects that would be felt at a distance. {source: What Is A Singularity? - Universe Today]
​

How big was the known universe when it started? It was very small, but we don't know how small.

​

 

[Paulomycin]

Ahh, the old "Question Argument" of the form:

p1 If A then B
p2 A?
c B?
lol Questions aren't ever part of an argument. Arguments make statements exclusively.

Then, "Can God kill Himself?" is not an argument. Thanks for settling that.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then, "Can God kill Himself?" is not an argument. Thanks for settling that.

Who ever said it was?

 

[Paulomycin]

Who ever said it was?

NihilistVirus (which proves you weren't following the thread).

Note: If I'm obligated to answer, then he's definitely using it as an argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then, "Can God kill Himself?" is not an argument.

Who ever said it was?

NihilistVirus (which proves you weren't following the thread).

Actually, NV is the one who made the distinction that arguments are fallacious and questions are not (which proves you weren't following the conversation):

Lastly, questions cannot be fallacies. They can be malformed, but you've committed a clear category error. Only arguments can be fallacious.

So no, NV did not say that his question was an argument. He said the opposite. Your statement is false. Again.

Note: If I'm obligated to answer, then he's definitely using it as an argument.

No, that's not how questions work. Folks use the answers to questions, which are statements, in arguments. That does not mean a question is part of an argument. Which I thought was already settled:

Questions aren't ever part of an argument. Arguments make statements exclusively.

Then, "Can God kill Himself?" is not an argument.

 

[Paulomycin]

Actually, NV is the one who made the distinction that arguments are fallacious and questions are not (which proves you weren't following the conversation):

Actually, he's pushing interrogatory questions as-if they were logical arguments, and everyone knows it, including you. Please don't pretend that atheists are faithful to any objective rules of debate, especially where they can take rhetorical advantage of their opponent instead.

"Can God kill Himself?" is the deliberate framing of a narrative fork to result in only two possible outcomes:

(a.) If God cannot kill Himself, then He is not omnipotent.
(b.) If God can kill Himself, and still hasn't done so, then He has not proven His omnipotence.

I pointed out that the question itself was in error (c.), because God is an infinite being. To "kill God" would necessarily require exceeding His omnipotence, and you cannot exceed an infinite. NV scoffed a bit before he realized what I was getting at. The question is a failure of contradiction.

 

[Moral Orel]

(a.) If God cannot kill Himself, then He is not omnipotent.
(b.) If God can kill Himself, and still hasn't done so, then He has not proven His omnipotence.

I pointed out that the question itself was in error (c.), because God is an infinite being. To "kill God" would necessarily require exceeding His omnipotence, and you cannot exceed an infinite.

Sounds like (a.) to me.

God must exceed an infinite to kill Himself
God cannot exceed an infinite
God cannot kill Himself

 

[Lion IRC]

Not only do I think God could kill Himself, (if He wished to do so,) in my metaphysics, He could even do so temporarily.

THAT'S omnipotence!

 

[doubtingmerle]

I pointed out that the question itself was in error (c.), because God is an infinite being. To "kill God" would necessarily require exceeding His omnipotence, and you cannot exceed an infinite.

Ah but one can exceed an infinite number.

Let n be an infinite number. Let m=2n. What is m/n?

The answer is 2. In the limit, m is twice as big as an infinite number.

So your God reportedly has infinite defending abilities (n) and infinite killing abilities (m). Which is greater, m on n?

It is indeed a legitimate question.

 

[Paulomycin]

Sounds like (a.) to me.

Your wanting (a.) does not rationally make it (a.).

God must exceed an infinite to kill Himself

^ This statement is an inherent contradiction. Atheists are supposed to be all about reason, remember?

 

[Paulomycin]

It is indeed a legitimate question.

You're one of those people that tries to convince others that 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

 

[Moral Orel]

Your wanting (a.) does not rationally make it (a.).

I wanted it to be (b.)

^ This statement is an inherent contradiction. Atheists are supposed to be all about reason, remember?

It isn't a contradiction to say that you can't do something which is logically contradictory.

I cannot draw a square circle because a square circle is logically contradictory. However, "I cannot draw a square circle" is a true statement.

 

[Paulomycin]

It isn't a contradiction to say that you can't do something which is logically contradictory.

Understood. Apologies. I misunderstood your statement.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The universe and its temperature gradient has nothing to do with the size of the universe that was created by the Big Bang.

Yes, it does if the universe were a great deal larger the temperature would be lower.

dm: We are limited in how far in space we can see, and we don't know how much is beyond that limit. We know that the universe has no edge, so it either extends to infinity, or it somehow circles back upon itself in a big circle in any direction. And as I explained before (and you ignored) the evidence indicates it is significantly larger than what we see, and could be indeed infinite in size.

Actually cosmologists now have a good idea of how many of each type of galaxy the universe contains.

dm: What evidence indicates that the universe started smaller than Planck length? So far you have presented none, nor have you given me any confidence that you understand the physics.

Most cosmologists believe it started at a point with NO dimensions.

dm: And I have shown your logic of causality to be bogus in another thread.

Without causality science is impossible. Therefore if you have disproven causality then you destroy all your arguments using science.

dm: If the universe did not go back to a singularity, that is, if is started as some finite size, then I understand our spacetime could have continued before that. If it did go back to a singularity, that does not prove that your law of causality "before" the Big Bang applies.

It may not prove it, but it is rational to assume it does since in times past whenever it was assumed that logic applied in unusual situations great truths were discovered.

dm: Judging by the difficulty I have to get you to understand what I am asking, and not having access to this magazine, I will remain skeptical of your claim that this many scientists think the universe definitely went back to a singularity. From what I am reading, we don't know if it began at zero, or at some finite size such as Planck length.

Nevetheless it is the majority view. Paul Davies and Arno Penzias are part of that group.

dm: But again, it is wrong for you to state, as you have done many times, that if the universe went back to a singularity, that therefore you know what was "before" that. You don't. Nobody does.

It is simple logic that at least points to His existence and then my experience confirms it.

dm: No sorry, it is not the majority view of leading physicists that the Big Bang had an intelligent cause. You simply made that up.

I never said that. I said a majority believes that the universe started with no dimensions and a singularity. But there is a significant number of well respected ones that believe that the universe came into existence thru a causal agent.

dm: No it does not appear that I claim it is proven the universe in infinite. I have repeatedly told you:

I gave a detailed explanation of why we think the universe is probably much bigger than what we see, and is perhaps infinite [in size]. I never claimed that the fact that we don't know proves it is infinite [in size].​

That does not appear to me to say that I know for sure it is infinite in size.

Well that is the way it appeared to me.

dm: Dark energy does nothing to prove a singularity. It does indicate that there is something stretching out spacetime. This stretching appears to be outside of the natural cause and effect of the known universe. This indicates that ultimate reality may at least partially consist of something that manifests itself as stretching in our spacetime. And this continuous stretching, combined with something like quantum functions, could be causing Big Bangs. We don't know.

According to most cosmologists dark energy is what is stretching out spacetime. What is ultimate reality? See my earlier post about the multiverse theory.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You're one of those people that tries to convince others that 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.

Ah, so you figure an insult of my intelligence is better than addressing my logic?

That's odd. I would have thought it was more important to address my logic.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ah, so you figure an insult of my intelligence is better than addressing my logic?

It was good enough for Krauss. So how can it be an insult?

That's odd. I would have thought it was more important to address my logic.

Which essentially as childish as exclaiming "Infinity plus one!!!11"

 

[doubtingmerle]

It was good enough for Krauss. So how can it be an insult?

Sorry, but telling me that I think 2+2=5 is an insult to my intelligence.

Do you wish to actually respond to my logic, or just post insults?

Which essentially as childish as exclaiming "Infinity plus one!!!11"

No sorry, there is an entire branch of mathematics that deals with equations that would reduce to zero divided by zero or infinity divided by infinity. You can look at the limits as a value approaches zero or infinity and calculate what it would be. it is not childish. It is college level calculus.

The ratio of (n+1)/n approaches 1 as n approaches infinity

The ratio of (2n/n) approaches 2 as n approaches infinity.

Back to the question. Which is greater:

a) God's ability to kill
b) God's ability to defend himself.
​

If a is greater, God can kill himself.

If b is greater, God is limited in his ability to kill, and he is not therefore omnipotent.

 

[Paulomycin]

Sorry, but telling me that I think 2+2=5 is an insult to my intelligence.

You're not explaining why.

Do you wish to actually respond to my logic, or just post insults?

Why do you think "infinity +1" constitutes logic?

No sorry, there is an entire branch of mathematics that deals with equations that would reduce to zero divided by zero or infinity divided by infinity.

So you're pushing troll logic through dividing by zero.

And no two infinities can exceed each-other.

 

[Paulomycin]

Sorry, but telling me that I think 2+2=5 is an insult to my intelligence.

Do you wish to actually respond to my logic, or just post insults?


No sorry, there is an entire branch of mathematics that deals with equations that would reduce to zero divided by zero or infinity divided by infinity. You can look at the limits as a value approaches zero or infinity and calculate what it would be. it is not childish. It is college level calculus.

The ratio of (n+1)/n approaches 1 as n approaches infinity

The ratio of (2n/n) approaches 2 as n approaches infinity.

Back to the question. Which is greater:

a) God's ability to kill
b) God's ability to defend himself.
​

If a is greater, God can kill himself.

If b is greater, God is limited in his ability to kill, and he is not therefore omnipotent.

So Merle claims to have disproven God.

 

[Paulomycin]

It's very odd how people who are allegedly pro-Big Bang also feel the need to mitigate it just to special-plead away the existence of an omnipotent being.

I have recently read, The End of Everything by leading astrophyicist Katie Mack. She writes:

The singularity is one hypothesis for what might have started everything off, but we can't really be sure...There might have been a singularity. [pg 32, 35]​

​

Which is magically just as good as an actual alternative scientific theory.

Some more recent proposals also suggest that the Universe did not begin as a singularity. These includes theories like Loop Quantum Gravity, which attempts to unify the laws of quantum physics with gravity. This theory states that, due to quantum gravity effects, there is a minimum distance beyond which gravity no longer continues to increase, or that interpenetrating particle waves mask gravitational effects that would be felt at a distance. {source: What Is A Singularity? - Universe Today]

- But how reliable are these proposals?
- What are the proposals based on, outside of mere conjecture?
- Why create a proposal that would end up asking more questions that you're trying to solve? <-- Oh, wait. I forgot, because we're trying to avoid God as hard as we can.
- How is this any different from, "Doubt is the ends on a pedestal, therefore God does not exist?"
- And, most importantly, how is this NOT an appeal to infinite regress?

How big was the known universe when it started? It was very small, but we don't know how small.

Therefore, you don't have to rationally account for it?