Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 02/27/04 10:41pm
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "But do you quath?" on 02/27/04 3:21pm
>>I agree with Damoclese on this one. I think the past
>>is finite and begins with the Big Bang. But from this
>>I also infer the cosmological argument. Anything that
>>begins to exist has a cause (ex nihilo nihil
>>fit), since the universe began to exist, it was
>>created by an extremely powerful (hey, creating the
>>universe is a big job) outside agency that transcends
>>time itself.
>
>I don't think the universe is subject to ex nihilo
>nihil fit. What we think of as nothing the universe
>could very easily have come from, because "nothing" is
>actually stuff that is popping in and out of existence
>on an atomic level with an overall sum that cancels
>out (which is why we think it's nothing).
Ha! Contrary to what you may think, what we call a vacuum is not nothing but a fluctuating sea of energy. Virtual particles coming into existence from a vacuum is not at all a violation of ex nihilo nihil fit.
>>Really? I predict that time will still exist
>>tomorrow. My prediction will come true (want to bet
>>$50 on it?). If a prediction about time is logically
>>impossible, it would seem you have a safe bet. But
>>methinks you may be mistaken.
>
>You can infer that time will exist tomorrow, and it
>probably is a safe bet. But you can't logically
>"prove" an inference.
Methinks the inference is reliable nonetheless.
>If you can, then a fellow by the
>name of Hume would be very interested in what you have
>to say, along with all of philosophy.
I don't talk to dead empiricists.
>>Again, I agree with Damoclese. But again, it only
>>seems to lend support to the theist. An extremely
>>powerful outside agency that transcends time and space
>>created the universe.
>
>I agree. Random chance is an extremely powerful agency.
We're not talking about the evolution of life on earth, we're talking about the entire physical universe and the space-time continuum. Random chance can't do squat without time or space or matter or energy. Even virtual particles couldn't be created. How can random chance cause anything when it has nothing to act on? And it's too vague anyway. If I hear a loud bang, and I ask the cause, I'm going to need something more than "random chance," I'd like something more, like a firecracker accidentally going off etc.
>>But the question is, why this way?
>
>Because if it weren't this way, the fundamental
>constituents would likely be different.
Why is the elephant in my room? Because if it weren't, it wouldn't be here. Sorry, that's just not an explanation. The elephant had to get here somehow, same with the universe.
>>Which theory best
>>explains the creation of the universe? The universe
>>coming from nothing and just happens to have all the
>>fine-tuned characteristics necessary for life,
>
>I don't think the universe came out-of-the-box
>shrinked wrapped with the conditions necessary for
>life as we know it. The raw materials were there,
>which in my view are fully explainable by quantum
>fluctuation.
No it ain't. Time itself began to exist, as did space (no vacuum). But suppose it did. Where did the vacuum come from? It always existed? Then, given infinite time, a universe should have popped into existence at every point in space. But that contradicts observation. Quantum fluctuation models have been discarded by physicists and even by its original proponents.
>>the
>>consistent operation of sophisticated mathematical
>>patterns etc.
>
>Sophisticated patterns that we perceive that could
>have just as easily self-organized little by little.
There's no evidence for that or reason to think why they would (we don’t exactly see new laws evolving and making themselves more heavily mathematical and sophisticated), and we still have the creation of the universe to consider. If I see a large, well-made functional computer program, I'd start inferring design rather than some mysterious unknown self-organizing process. It's all about an inference to the best explanation. And I think intelligent design is it.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 