Question for atheists. . .

[Bradskii]

No it doesn't definitively mean that.

You can version it any way you wish. If you want to propose a cycle which gradually slows down and stops, or one which infinitely accelerates, or one which had a beginning but no end...thats fine. We can work with any version of 'cycles' you propose.

But please clarify whether you assert that your cycles are uncaused and past-eternal. Is so, I would call that an infinite regression of cycles.

Each cycle causes the next. This one was caused by the previous one. There is effectively no matter at the end of each cycle. Hence no motion. Hence no distance and no time. Time restarts anew with each cycle (Penrose calls the aeons). So the term 'past-eternal doesn't apply.

And note that I am not putting forward this theory as my personal favourite so please don't expect me to try to support it in any way. It was brought up as an example of very many theories as to how the universe came to be. The concept of each can be explained relatively easily (which I acknowledged in regard to the comment made in regard to Feynman). But the physics and maths involved are magnitudes of order above and beyond what most lay people can understand.

But the days when it was either steady state or big bang are long gone.

And a point about what we often see in forum discussions about such matters. Unless you are a high level mathematical physicist or cosmologist (and in all my years on forums talking about matters such as this, I have never come across anyone involved in the discussion with those type of qualifications), then we are all operating on a degree of trust. That is, that the theories being presented are being presented in good faith and have some validity. But let's face it, they can't all be right. And they might actually all be wrong in fact. But it's not valid to discount them out of hand.

Do any of them need to be discounted to maintain faith in God? Absolutely not. They may all need to be ignored if you hold to a biblical version of creation, but all of the bucket loads of theories about how it actually happened are simply means to describe how God did it. Not whether He exists or not.

 

[Lion IRC]

Each cycle causes the next.

Like DaVinci's perpetual motion attempt.

 

[Bradskii]

Like DaVinci's perpetual motion attempt.

Maybe that's where Penrose got his idea from...

 

[Lion IRC]

Which is it?
Infinite regress or Unmoved mover?

I never got past "A" in the encyclopaedia of philosophy.
Aristotle
Augustine
Aquinas....

 

[Bradskii]

Which is it?
Infinite regress or Unmoved mover?

I never got past "A" in the encyclopaedia of philosophy.
Aristotle
Augustine
Aquinas....

I barely passed physics at high school level. So don't ask me to explain multiple universes. But I do know there are more than two options...

 

[Paulomycin]

I barely passed physics at high school level. So don't ask me to explain multiple universes. But I do know there are more than two options...

That, or you're faking it.

You're not stating anything in-particular.

Therefore, we can only conclude you're faking it.

 

[Bradskii]

That, or you're faking it.

You're not stating anything in-particular.

Therefore, we can only conclude you're faking it.

Yeah. You got me. Made it all up. I registered myself as a Roger Penrose years ago on a forum, won the Nobel prize (with a mate pretending to be Stephen Hawkin) and got myself knighted for some street cred. Then managed to fool both Oxford and Cambridge into giving me fellowships and then made up a theory about cyclical universes with lots of nonsensical equations I pinched from some old maths papers. Wrote a book about it and got it published.

You're the first person to catch me out. Curses!

 

[Lion IRC]

I think what Paul meant by 'faking it' was that since you (honestly) admit your lack of certainty with respect to infinite regression, past-eternal cosmology, cycles vs perpetual motion...etc - then your adamant insistence that a certain system is NOT the same as infinite regress, seems artificial.

Turtles all the way down is infinite regress.
Perpetual 'cycles' which are the result of prior cyclical causation are infinite regress.
I dont know how you can claim otherwise.

Cyclical, by definition, means that there is no infinite regress.

Why do you insist upon this if, by your own admission, you don't care to deep dive into the physics/cosmology. #Kalam #BGV_Theorem

 

[Bradskii]

I think what Paul meant by 'faking it' was that since you (honestly) admit your lack of certainty with respect to infinite regression, past-eternal cosmology, cycles vs perpetual motion...etc - then your adamant insistence that a certain system is NOT the same as infinite regress, seems artificial.

Turtles all the way down is infinite regress.
Perpetual 'cycles' which are the result of prior cyclical causation are infinite regress.
I dont know how you can claim otherwise.



Why do you insist upon this if, by your own admission, you don't care to deep dive into the physics/cosmology. #Kalam #BGV_Theorem

When I say I don't delve too deeply, I mean I''m not going to go back to uni and then study for a few years more to get to a level where I could discuss this with Penrose or one of his peers on a one to one basis. But I have listened to a few hours worth of his talks on this subject and I've read his book on it.

And nowhere is there noted a problem with it associated with an infinite regress. It simply never comes up. Even if you read much of what some of his fellow physicists claim to be problems with it, a regress is never mentioned.

It's difficult to talk about his theory without using common everyday terms. When much of it comprises high level maths. And I'm probably guilty of using a rerm such as 'caused' when I mentioned the aeons previously. Because that implies that one thing was the reason for the next. Which implies a regress.

If you imagine a big crunch (which is one of the theories for an infinite universe) whereby everything collapses upon itself and we revert to a singularity when we have another big bang, that is considered cyclical. And there is no regress there. It's like blowing up a balloon, letting it down and blowing it up again. There's a sequence, but you haven't got an infinite number of balloons going back to infinity.

Penrose's theory is the other side of that theoretical coin. Instead of collapsing, it expands to essentially nothingness and then restarts. It's possible to understand the concept of the balloon collapsing, but not possible to imagine it happening the other way. Hence the confusion.

 

[Lion IRC]

nowhere is there noted a problem with it associated with an infinite regress. It simply never comes up.

Maybe we just have to chalk it up to the semantics of determinism.
And that's fine. I dont see anything pejorative about the term infinite regress. I dont see why you would eschew the term.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe we just have to chalk it up to the semantics of determinism.
And that's fine. I dont see anything pejorative about the term infinite regress. I dont see why you would eschew the term.

I'm kinda with you on this. I'm not denying an infinite regress because I think that's impossible. I don't. Just because we can't get our head around such a concept doesn't mean we an discount it. The universe may be spatially infinite and that makes no sense either. But it doesn't mean we discount it.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'm kinda with you on this. I'm not denying an infinite regress because I think that's impossible. I don't. Just because we can't get our head around such a concept doesn't mean we an discount it. The universe may be spatially infinite and that makes no sense either. But it doesn't mean we discount it.

Infinite regress is logically absurd. Why? Because it's nothing more than "kicking the can" down the road to infinity, and ultimately it doesn't account for anything at all.

Infinite regress doesn't answer anything. It is an infinite non-answer. Claiming that something is justified, or justifiable knowledge, when in-fact it infinitely cannot be justified at all is an irrational contradiction. If atheists claim to oppose fundamentally non-rational claims, then they shouldn't push double-standards of their own.

Thus, infinite regress must be discounted on purely rational grounds.

 

[Lion IRC]

logically absurd

I agree. It's absurd but it's not impossible.

Past-eternal infinite regress is gonzo metaphysics because given enough time - an infinite, unlimited amount of time - everything which possibly could happen, will have already happened.

....an infinite number of times!

The (atheist) proponents of spontaneous evolution claim that life happened by random chance - no design. No fine tuning. (See Infinite monkey theorem)

Somehow, even with an infinite amount of past eternity, we haven't even managed to turn a DeLorean into a time machine yet. All those infinite multitude of extra terrestrial life forms still haven't managed to make it to our shores. What's keeping them?

 

[Bradskii]

Infinite regress doesn't answer anything. It is an infinite non-answer. Claiming that something is justified, or justifiable knowledge, when in-fact it infinitely cannot be justified at all is an irrational contradiction. If atheists claim to oppose fundamentally non-rational claims, then they shouldn't push double-standards of their own.

You have a belief as to how the universe was created. By God. There's no problem there. I don't know how it was done (but I'm pretty sure that your God wasn't involved - for reasons other than any theories on how we all came to be) and I have and will always give the answer 'I don't know' when asked for a definite position.

That said, your position appears to then cause you to discount any means of creation except the one in which you believe. And there are very many suggestions as to how it actually came to be (including an illogically sounding infinite regress). But you reject them all even when none of them discount God.

You are suffering from the same problems that our evolution-denying chums suffer from. They have a fundamentalist position to defend and any alternatives, even when they are specifically told that they don't discount God, they reject out of hand. They constantly claim, even when contradicted by other Christians, that evolution is an attempt to remove God from His position as the creator of all things. When it's just an explanation as to how He did it.

You're coming across the same way. 'This explanation means God did it, yours excludes God, therefore you are wrong'.

I think it might have been this thread that I listed quite a few different theories as to what type of universes there could be and how they came into existence. And to be honest, I haven't got the background in maths and physics to really understand any of them. The explanations are dumbed down so that the likes of you and me can at least understand the basic concepts.

But do you think you can get someone like yourself to use a phrase like 'on the understanding that...' or 'assuming for the moment...' or even a simple 'If...'? Fat chance. Because prefixing any claims with those terms indicates a certain degree of doubt. But heaven forbid that anyone take a backward step in a forum discussion! You have to stand your ground! You cannot show weakness!

And many of those frequenting Christian sites show very little humility in this regard.

 

[Paulomycin]

I agree. It's absurd but it's not impossible.

Inductively, you are correct. However. . .deductively speaking, the absurd is literally impossible.

Past-eternal infinite regress is gonzo metaphysics because given enough time - an infinite, unlimited amount of time - everything which possibly could happen, will have already happened.

....an infinite number of times!

In any case, those atheists who rely on taking this argumentative route would be forced to admit a metaphysical claim. Your example from evolution proves this only creates more questions than answers

 

[Paulomycin]

You have a belief as to how the universe was created. By God.

My argument itself has nothing to do with theism. You can still be theistic and believe in absurdities like infinite regress.

There's no problem there. I don't know how it was done (but I'm pretty sure that your God wasn't involved - for reasons other than any theories on how we all came to be) and I have and will always give the answer 'I don't know' when asked for a definite position.

1. You have no reason to front so much "pretty sure" self-assurance. All you're saying is, "Because I said so, so there!" Argumentum ad lapidem.

2. I don't know is an admission to ignorance. It's not a definitive answer in-itself.

That said, your position appears to then cause you to discount any means of creation except the one in which you believe. And there are very many suggestions as to how it actually came to be (including an illogically sounding infinite regress). But you reject them all even when none of them discount God.

They have to be equal in strength of deductive reasoning. They have to actually do more than mere "suggestions." Vague hypothetical speculations about "other possibilities" are still too weak by comparison. Where's the rigor? Who on earth taught you that spitballing vague speculations counted for anything when compared to a strong bivalent argument?

You're coming across the same way. 'This explanation means God did it, yours excludes God, therefore you are wrong'.

And you don't care how I got there. You'd much rather make up something that resembles stereotypical fundamentalism. But I'm more fundie than that. Again, "show your work" applies to everyone equally, including YECs.

I think it might have been this thread that I listed quite a few different theories as to what type of universes there could be and how they came into existence. And to be honest, I haven't got the background in maths and physics to really understand any of them. The explanations are dumbed down so that the likes of you and me can at least understand the basic concepts.

Then it's evident you're not willing to do the work. It doesn't matter what your formal education is. You have the tools right in front of you to hammer it out in your garage, metaphorically-speaking. Your alternatives aren't even being argued at an applied level, because they can't even be specified at a more basic level.

But do you think you can get someone like yourself to use a phrase like 'on the understanding that...' or 'assuming for the moment...' or even a simple 'If...'? Fat chance.

Account for your alleged rule. Don't whine about it. Justify it!

Because prefixing any claims with those terms indicates a certain degree of doubt. But heaven forbid that anyone take a backward step in a forum discussion! You have to stand your ground! You cannot show weakness!

Now you're demanding that I show weakness just so you can exploit that weakness and compete. Whatever for? Doubt is the means; not the ends. You, like most other atheists in this world, confuse the means with the ends. And absolutes, while scarce, really do exist. To dumb those down would be intellectually dishonest.

You wanna play hardball when we're at bat, but when you're up, you insist on playing tee-ball instead. Not gonna happen.

 

[Bradskii]

Then it's evident you're not willing to do the work. It doesn't matter what your formal education is. You have the tools right in front of you to hammer it out in your garage, metaphorically-speaking. Your alternatives aren't even being argued at an applied level, because they can't even be specified at a more basic level.

I'll skip the whack-a-mole response (is there some way that you get paid for the number of non sequitors you post?) and just respond to that left above because this is primary.

I think that upstream you intimated that steady state is out (really? I need to keep up to date) and an infinite regress is not acceptable, therefore God. OK, it was slightly more embellished than that. But not by much. And I think I pointed out a few alternatives (none of which rule out God).

Is it now your argument that they can't be considered in a list of possible alternatives because I personally haven't spent a couple of decades getting up to speed on high level physics, maths and cosmology? Really?

Now there's only one point being made there. And one question really. So I'd appreciate an answer to that one point. Put the scatter gun back in the rack.

 

[Paulomycin]

I'll skip the whack-a-mole response (is there some way that you get paid for the number of non sequitors you post?) and just respond to that left above because this is primary.

If you're going to make the accusation of a "non-sequitur," then you should at least attempt to justify it. What makes you think you can get away with so many empty accusations?

I think that upstream you intimated that steady state is out (really? I need to keep up to date)

Or else you don't believe in scientific falsifiability. Take your pick.

and an infinite regress is not acceptable, therefore God.

With a lot more steps in-between. But you had to put some editorial spin on it. I get it.

OK, it was slightly more embellished than that. But not by much.

By a lot.

And I think I pointed out a few alternatives (none of which rule out God).

But none you're even willing to fully commit to. So why bother? Oh right, you want to maintain the appearance of a "gotcha." Even if it merely appears to be one.

Is it now your argument that they can't be considered in a list of possible alternatives because I personally haven't spent a couple of decades getting up to speed on high level physics, maths and cosmology? Really?

Yeah really. It's actually a lot less work than you think. In most cases, all you need to do is look up the conclusions they came to and where the debate went from there. You're just scaring yourself into being lazy, is all.

Now there's only one point being made there. And one question really. So I'd appreciate an answer to that one point. Put the scatter gun back in the rack.

What specific point have I failed to answer?

 

[Bradskii]

Yeah really. It's actually a lot less work than you think. In most cases, all you need to do is look up the conclusions they came to and where the debate went from there.

The conclusion to the proposal for each type of universe/multiverse is that...the proposal could be correct. Nobody's doing theology. We're looking at scientific proposals. And yes, it's a vast amount of work to get up enough speed to understand these proposals in enough detail to be able to say 'Yes, this appears to work' or 'No, I think you'll find it's wrong'. All we do is listen to those who know enough about the subjects required and keep up to date with the discussions they have about the pros and conns.

Again, I am in no position to declare a winner in the universe/multiverse/creation stakes - from a scientific perspective. And neither are you. But if you want to say that God was responsible for which ever one turns out to be correct, then go for it.

 

[Paulomycin]

The conclusion to the proposal for each type of universe/multiverse is that...the proposal could be correct.

Not really. There are real debates and rejections of these models that either you're either not aware of, or trying to sweep under the rug. I'll be charitable and assume you're not aware of them.

Nobody's doing theology. We're looking at scientific proposals.

Awesome. If you were really scientific, you would accept that steady state theory has been falsified.

Again, I am in no position to declare a winner in the universe/multiverse/creation stakes - from a scientific perspective.

1.) "God" is not a scientific claim.

2.) I'm not even proposing Intelligent Design as science, or anything of that sort.

3.) The universe is math-dependent. So any argument to math or logic is a category change (or paradigm shift) you just have to follow where that occurs. This discussion includes more than one dogmatic category.