Unknown2007-10-02 18:48:58
It's been awhile, I think it's about time for another one of my exhilarating threads for religious discussion!
*waits for the cheering to die down*
Instead of another random question-and-answer type thread, I want to pick specific topics to talk about instead. When I went through my "re-affirmation," I followed a Descartes-like logical progression. I started by examining evidence that there was some extra-natural force, then went on to exploring evidence that further defined that force as God, then on to evidence about Jesus, etc.. IMHO you can only make progress by breaking it down like this - trying to accept or reject a relegion wholesale is like trying to build a battery without knowing anything about chemical reactions.
So, with that in mind, I want to focus specifically on the "beginning" of everything. Was there a beginning of the universe? Of time? What was the beginning like? If so, how did things begin? Are there any problems with just assuming that there never was a beginning and that things have always been?
I'll start with my own assertions. People can then post their own ideas, or criticize and ask about mine, and so the conversation soon explodes into an 800-page thread where none of us can keep up. For the record, I am assuming the Big Bang theory as the beginning of the universe.
1. The universe had a beginning. By this I mean the universe as we know it (energy and matter, empty space is a seperate issue). I believe this is dictated by the laws of thermodynamics - as time goes on, the amount of usable energy in the universe decreases, being converted instead to heat. If things had truly always existed, according to the laws of thermodynamics we should all be great big balls of heat (since matter is a form of energy). Clearly we are not balls of heat, so it seems that either:
a. Energy came into being at some specific point in the past and has not always been around or
b. Energy reactions did not exist until some specific point in the past, at which point energy began to react and the laws of thermodynamics came into play.
c. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the universe. In order to make this statement, you have to assume that the universe is an open system (i.e. it receives energy from somewhere outside of itself), in which case we have reached the same conclusion - something exists outside of the universe and supplies the universe.
In either case, either something directly interacted to change the universe or the universe began at some point in the past.
2. Time had a beginning. The basic idea is that there were no actual events before the Big Bang, so the concept of time is nonsensical and came into existence along with the creation of energy. William Lane Craig has a pretty good article about this idea (from the perspective of a Christian): http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/time.html
3. If the universe had a beginning,something had to cause that beginning. The Law of Causality tells us that any change requires a cause. There must be one Original Cause that caused everything which came after it - and that Original Cause must be eternal, as it was not "caused" itself. Based on this, some Original, extra-universal force must exist outside of (or "before") both time and energy.
Discussions about what that force might be can come later, the point for now is to see if we can agree that such a force exists. Bring on the pitchforks and shotguns, and someone be sure to call Veritrhax so he doesn't miss out on the fun!
*waits for the cheering to die down*
Instead of another random question-and-answer type thread, I want to pick specific topics to talk about instead. When I went through my "re-affirmation," I followed a Descartes-like logical progression. I started by examining evidence that there was some extra-natural force, then went on to exploring evidence that further defined that force as God, then on to evidence about Jesus, etc.. IMHO you can only make progress by breaking it down like this - trying to accept or reject a relegion wholesale is like trying to build a battery without knowing anything about chemical reactions.
So, with that in mind, I want to focus specifically on the "beginning" of everything. Was there a beginning of the universe? Of time? What was the beginning like? If so, how did things begin? Are there any problems with just assuming that there never was a beginning and that things have always been?
I'll start with my own assertions. People can then post their own ideas, or criticize and ask about mine, and so the conversation soon explodes into an 800-page thread where none of us can keep up. For the record, I am assuming the Big Bang theory as the beginning of the universe.
1. The universe had a beginning. By this I mean the universe as we know it (energy and matter, empty space is a seperate issue). I believe this is dictated by the laws of thermodynamics - as time goes on, the amount of usable energy in the universe decreases, being converted instead to heat. If things had truly always existed, according to the laws of thermodynamics we should all be great big balls of heat (since matter is a form of energy). Clearly we are not balls of heat, so it seems that either:
a. Energy came into being at some specific point in the past and has not always been around or
b. Energy reactions did not exist until some specific point in the past, at which point energy began to react and the laws of thermodynamics came into play.
c. The second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the universe. In order to make this statement, you have to assume that the universe is an open system (i.e. it receives energy from somewhere outside of itself), in which case we have reached the same conclusion - something exists outside of the universe and supplies the universe.
In either case, either something directly interacted to change the universe or the universe began at some point in the past.
2. Time had a beginning. The basic idea is that there were no actual events before the Big Bang, so the concept of time is nonsensical and came into existence along with the creation of energy. William Lane Craig has a pretty good article about this idea (from the perspective of a Christian): http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/time.html
3. If the universe had a beginning,something had to cause that beginning. The Law of Causality tells us that any change requires a cause. There must be one Original Cause that caused everything which came after it - and that Original Cause must be eternal, as it was not "caused" itself. Based on this, some Original, extra-universal force must exist outside of (or "before") both time and energy.
Discussions about what that force might be can come later, the point for now is to see if we can agree that such a force exists. Bring on the pitchforks and shotguns, and someone be sure to call Veritrhax so he doesn't miss out on the fun!
Xavius2007-10-02 19:34:41
Point 3 is where it breaks down.
In many ways, things can be their own cause. Nothing causes a planet to exert a gravitational field--that's just what matter does.
So, what happened before the Big Bang? Couldn't say. No one could. People much more talented than I am can poke at data and get a fair sense of what happened near the time of the Big Bang, and can make testable hypotheses about what might have happened near the time of the Big Bang, and, all else being equal, get closer by process of elimination.
Still, the statement that time did not apply prior to the Big Bang may very well be true, in which case, we go right back to things "causing themselves;" or energy doing what energy does. There's no need to hypothesize an eternal and otherwise unobserved force.
In many ways, things can be their own cause. Nothing causes a planet to exert a gravitational field--that's just what matter does.
So, what happened before the Big Bang? Couldn't say. No one could. People much more talented than I am can poke at data and get a fair sense of what happened near the time of the Big Bang, and can make testable hypotheses about what might have happened near the time of the Big Bang, and, all else being equal, get closer by process of elimination.
Still, the statement that time did not apply prior to the Big Bang may very well be true, in which case, we go right back to things "causing themselves;" or energy doing what energy does. There's no need to hypothesize an eternal and otherwise unobserved force.
Unknown2007-10-02 19:47:53
QUOTE(Xavius @ Oct 2 2007, 02:34 PM) 446093
Point 3 is where it breaks down.
In many ways, things can be their own cause. Nothing causes a planet to exert a gravitational field--that's just what matter does.
So, what happened before the Big Bang? Couldn't say. No one could. People much more talented than I am can poke at data and get a fair sense of what happened near the time of the Big Bang, and can make testable hypotheses about what might have happened near the time of the Big Bang, and, all else being equal, get closer by process of elimination.
Still, the statement that time did not apply prior to the Big Bang may very well be true, in which case, we go right back to things "causing themselves;" or energy doing what energy does. There's no need to hypothesize an eternal and otherwise unobserved force.
In many ways, things can be their own cause. Nothing causes a planet to exert a gravitational field--that's just what matter does.
So, what happened before the Big Bang? Couldn't say. No one could. People much more talented than I am can poke at data and get a fair sense of what happened near the time of the Big Bang, and can make testable hypotheses about what might have happened near the time of the Big Bang, and, all else being equal, get closer by process of elimination.
Still, the statement that time did not apply prior to the Big Bang may very well be true, in which case, we go right back to things "causing themselves;" or energy doing what energy does. There's no need to hypothesize an eternal and otherwise unobserved force.
The difference is that gravity has always been. Not everything has to have a cause - only changes have to have a cause. For example, if a planet suddenly stopped exerting a gravitational field, we would all go scrambling to find a cause. Changes don't just happen uncaused. In the same way, the Original Cause does not have to have a cause itself, because it never began. There has to be something that had no beginning, and thus was not caused.
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused. So, unless the Universe is eternal, it must have had a cause. It could very well be eternal - in which case I could accept the assertion that it is uncaused - but from the logic and experiments I have seen, it seems to have had a beginning, in which case it must also have had a cause.
Xavius2007-10-02 19:55:11
It had a beginning, the beginning had stuff, stuff did what stuff does. Multiple major branches of science are based on that, and they haven't collapsed or splintered off into dissenting schools, so I'm guessing that there's something to that.
The theological argument mostly frets over said stuff. We have no evidence of change prior to the Big Bang. One, we wouldn't, because we can't postulate past existence. Two, if the Big Bang really is the beginning of time, there was no change. Time is primarily a measure of change.
The theological argument mostly frets over said stuff. We have no evidence of change prior to the Big Bang. One, we wouldn't, because we can't postulate past existence. Two, if the Big Bang really is the beginning of time, there was no change. Time is primarily a measure of change.
Daganev2007-10-02 20:27:56
The first Hebrew letter of the Torah is the letter bet. It has 3 sides, with the opening of the letter facing the rest of the sentence. The rabbis ask, why does the Torah start with the Bet, the second letter of the alphabet, instead of the Aleph? (the first letter)
One answer given, is that the Bet teaches that one should not ask what came before, what is above or what is below, because the answer is impossible to know.
They then go right into a discussion about precisely what is before, above, and below. These conversations are nice, and good to think about, but you have to realize that ultimately there is no answer to these questions, and what you think the answer is, should really be about where you depart from, and not what the "Truth" is.
Then, they discuss what "Before, Above, and Below" refer to, and that is also an interesting conversation. Here are some possible meanings of the words I have heard.
Before:
Before the Torah
Before Creation
Before Time
Before you were born
Before you were at the situation you are in.
Above:
The spiritual world
Beyond the edges of the Universe
Being an Angel, and not a human.
The Divine rewards
What it would be like if you were richer/smarter/healthier
Below:
The purely Physical.
The center of the Earth
Being an animal, and not a human
Divine Punishment
What it would be like if you were poorer/more stupid/less healthy
I really think all discussions on this type of topic really needs to start with a reminder that nobody knows and nobody will ever know.
One answer given, is that the Bet teaches that one should not ask what came before, what is above or what is below, because the answer is impossible to know.
They then go right into a discussion about precisely what is before, above, and below. These conversations are nice, and good to think about, but you have to realize that ultimately there is no answer to these questions, and what you think the answer is, should really be about where you depart from, and not what the "Truth" is.
Then, they discuss what "Before, Above, and Below" refer to, and that is also an interesting conversation. Here are some possible meanings of the words I have heard.
Before:
Before the Torah
Before Creation
Before Time
Before you were born
Before you were at the situation you are in.
Above:
The spiritual world
Beyond the edges of the Universe
Being an Angel, and not a human.
The Divine rewards
What it would be like if you were richer/smarter/healthier
Below:
The purely Physical.
The center of the Earth
Being an animal, and not a human
Divine Punishment
What it would be like if you were poorer/more stupid/less healthy
I really think all discussions on this type of topic really needs to start with a reminder that nobody knows and nobody will ever know.
Daganev2007-10-02 20:32:57
QUOTE(mitbulls @ Oct 2 2007, 12:47 PM) 446098
The difference is that gravity has always been. Not everything has to have a cause - only changes have to have a cause. For example, if a planet suddenly stopped exerting a gravitational field, we would all go scrambling to find a cause. Changes don't just happen uncaused. In the same way, the Original Cause does not have to have a cause itself, because it never began. There has to be something that had no beginning, and thus was not caused.
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused. So, unless the Universe is eternal, it must have had a cause. It could very well be eternal - in which case I could accept the assertion that it is uncaused - but from the logic and experiments I have seen, it seems to have had a beginning, in which case it must also have had a cause.
Anything that had a beginning must have been caused. So, unless the Universe is eternal, it must have had a cause. It could very well be eternal - in which case I could accept the assertion that it is uncaused - but from the logic and experiments I have seen, it seems to have had a beginning, in which case it must also have had a cause.
There is something else related to the first cause, in time, as all causes end up with chicken and egg issues.
Another aspect is "cause" in definition. A planet is a planet because there is something which is not a planet around it. Things are defined by their borders. This is X because that is Not X.
Since there is a "beginning" there is something which is not defined by what it is not, and it nothing can really be said about it other than it's existence.
Unknown2007-10-02 21:06:01
My first thoughts, which I have to keep short, because I don't have more time at the moment:
1. Things do not always happen because of a reason in a quantum world.
2. Time is a dimension. Along with 3 physical dimensions we know (and perhaps some we don't), it forms a closed stage we call Universe. Looking at it from that perspective does not alienate time as something that must be accounted for separately, but just as one of the parameters of the universe.
3. On the topic of additional dimensions - that might be the place you are looking for with your energy reasoning.
4. Also, in point 1 you call the second law of thermodynamics to prove that it doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, so you claim universe must be open or it had a beginning. You don't seem to take a different explanation into account - that this law is simply wrong in a universal sense, meaning it does not always apply.
1. Things do not always happen because of a reason in a quantum world.
2. Time is a dimension. Along with 3 physical dimensions we know (and perhaps some we don't), it forms a closed stage we call Universe. Looking at it from that perspective does not alienate time as something that must be accounted for separately, but just as one of the parameters of the universe.
3. On the topic of additional dimensions - that might be the place you are looking for with your energy reasoning.
4. Also, in point 1 you call the second law of thermodynamics to prove that it doesn't apply to the universe as a whole, so you claim universe must be open or it had a beginning. You don't seem to take a different explanation into account - that this law is simply wrong in a universal sense, meaning it does not always apply.
Xavius2007-10-02 21:29:48
A whole new breed of insanity!
Things existing "outside a quantum world" are as farfetched as deities, angels, avatars, faeries, and Vatican military intelligence. There is no reason to postulate them, and there's only anecdotal evidence that the people who first proposed such weren't incredibly insane or intoxicated.
Time can be called a dimension, depending on how you define dimension, yes. (Both length and time are warped by travelling at high speeds--similarities exist.) Defining time as a dimension doesn't change the fact that you don't move around in it like you do the spacial dimensions.
Additional dimensions are postulated by various working theories (or, speaking more precisely, hypothetical models), but the theories themselves still lie outside of observational science.
The second law of thermodynamics really works out best on the universal scale. It's trivial for us non-physics people on scales we actually use.
Things existing "outside a quantum world" are as farfetched as deities, angels, avatars, faeries, and Vatican military intelligence. There is no reason to postulate them, and there's only anecdotal evidence that the people who first proposed such weren't incredibly insane or intoxicated.
Time can be called a dimension, depending on how you define dimension, yes. (Both length and time are warped by travelling at high speeds--similarities exist.) Defining time as a dimension doesn't change the fact that you don't move around in it like you do the spacial dimensions.
Additional dimensions are postulated by various working theories (or, speaking more precisely, hypothetical models), but the theories themselves still lie outside of observational science.
The second law of thermodynamics really works out best on the universal scale. It's trivial for us non-physics people on scales we actually use.
Unknown2007-10-02 21:47:04
QUOTE(Xavius @ Oct 2 2007, 11:29 PM) 446120
Things existing "outside a quantum world" are as farfetched as deities, angels, avatars, faeries, and Vatican military intelligence. There is no reason to postulate them, and there's only anecdotal evidence that the people who first proposed such weren't incredibly insane or intoxicated.
I said in the quantum world, not outside of it.
QUOTE(Xavius @ Oct 2 2007, 11:29 PM) 446120
Additional dimensions are postulated by various working theories (or, speaking more precisely, hypothetical models), but the theories themselves still lie outside of observational science.
Just like the theories for the beginning of the universe and what was before that. It's all speculation.
QUOTE(Xavius @ Oct 2 2007, 11:29 PM) 446120
The second law of thermodynamics really works out best on the universal scale. It's trivial for us non-physics people on scales we actually use.
We don't know what kind of physics laws occure in the black hole, do we?
Verithrax2007-10-03 01:20:33
I'm going to conveniently ignore Daganev and Kashim as unnecessary distractions (Because, seriously, Daganev just dragged the Torah into the conversation. I stopped reading his post briefly afterwards.).
First, how can you assert that causality even exists without time, or let alone gravity? Forces, as we learn in high school physics, are usually defined in terms acceleration. Acceleration is speed increasing over time. Speed is position changing over time. Without time, how can there be any physical force or agency at all?
Point two in itself is flawed. Please support the assertion that the universe is not a closed system. Find the big source of energy; where is it located? How does that energy come into the universe?
And keep in mind that even in the unlikely event of we establishing that there is agency outside the Universe or before time, it does not follow that said agency is the Judeo-Christian god.
First, how can you assert that causality even exists without time, or let alone gravity? Forces, as we learn in high school physics, are usually defined in terms acceleration. Acceleration is speed increasing over time. Speed is position changing over time. Without time, how can there be any physical force or agency at all?
Point two in itself is flawed. Please support the assertion that the universe is not a closed system. Find the big source of energy; where is it located? How does that energy come into the universe?
And keep in mind that even in the unlikely event of we establishing that there is agency outside the Universe or before time, it does not follow that said agency is the Judeo-Christian god.
Yrael2007-10-03 01:37:02
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Oct 3 2007, 11:20 AM) 446201
I'm going to conveniently ignore Daganev and Kashim as unnecessary distractions (Because, seriously, Daganev just dragged the Torah into the conversation. I stopped reading his post briefly afterwards.).
First, how can you assert that casualty even exists without time, or let alone gravity? Forces, as we learn in high school physics, are usually defined in terms acceleration. Acceleration is speed increasing over time. Speed is position changing over time. Without time, how can there be any physical force or agency at all?
Point two in itself is flawed. Please support the assertion that the universe is not a closed system. Find the big source of energy; where is it located? How does that energy come into the universe?
And keep in mind that even in the unlikely event of we establishing that there is agency outside the Universe or before time, it does not follow that said agency is the Judeo-Christian god.
First, how can you assert that casualty even exists without time, or let alone gravity? Forces, as we learn in high school physics, are usually defined in terms acceleration. Acceleration is speed increasing over time. Speed is position changing over time. Without time, how can there be any physical force or agency at all?
Point two in itself is flawed. Please support the assertion that the universe is not a closed system. Find the big source of energy; where is it located? How does that energy come into the universe?
And keep in mind that even in the unlikely event of we establishing that there is agency outside the Universe or before time, it does not follow that said agency is the Judeo-Christian god.
Chances are that the outside agency (Sorry. I don't accept that things can spring ex nihilo except with an outside agency, and it's much nicer for me to believe that instead of some unknowable cosmic soup there is some sort of divinity, wether he loves me or hates me or really doesn't give a
.) wouldn't have inspired anything. MIght have just created the universe as a "What the hell." sort of thing. Seriously, who would pick humanity as a "chosen race"? Or the universe itself was a sentient being,and we're all it's thoguhts and dreams.Daganev2007-10-03 02:37:08
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Oct 2 2007, 06:20 PM) 446201
Point two in itself is flawed. Please support the assertion that the universe is not a closed system. Find the big source of energy; where is it located? How does that energy come into the universe?
I thought it was already established that "something" very often is created from "nothing."
But that creates more questions than it answers.
Daganev2007-10-03 02:42:55
QUOTE(Verithrax @ Oct 2 2007, 06:20 PM) 446201
I'm going to conveniently ignore Daganev and Kashim as unnecessary distractions (Because, seriously, Daganev just dragged the Torah into the conversation. I stopped reading his post briefly afterwards.).
Your complete dismissal of completely relevant points is very entertaining.
Daganev2007-10-03 02:48:42
QUOTE(Yrael @ Oct 2 2007, 06:37 PM) 446206
Chances are that the outside agency wouldn't have inspired anything.
The mere existence of the possibility of an outside agency has inspired everything. I am not sure what leads you to believe that the chances are that an actual occurance of such outside agency would not inspire.
QUOTE
MIght have just created the universe as a "What the hell." sort of thing. Or the universe itself was a sentient being,and we're all it's thoguhts and dreams.
QUOTE
Seriously, who would pick humanity as a "chosen race"?
How is humanity not "chosen"? Every attempt to put humans within the same exact category as Animals has failed. There is a large qualitative difference between us.
Shiri2007-10-03 02:55:15
QUOTE(daganev @ Oct 3 2007, 03:48 AM) 446234
How is humanity not "chosen"? Every attempt to put humans within the same exact category as Animals has failed. There is a large qualitative difference between us.
...what!? There hasn't been any "attempt." Of course there's a qualitative difference: we're us and they're not. That doesn't change the fact that as much as any animal is in the same category as another animal, so is the human race. It's not something anyone has to attempt, it's just how it works...
Daganev2007-10-03 06:49:40
QUOTE(Shiri @ Oct 2 2007, 07:55 PM) 446242
...what!? There hasn't been any "attempt." Of course there's a qualitative difference: we're us and they're not. That doesn't change the fact that as much as any animal is in the same category as another animal, so is the human race. It's not something anyone has to attempt, it's just how it works...
Perhaps NPR lies or is wrong about this (they are often wrong about things) But just last week they did a story about a study which did various "tests" with human babies and monkey babies to see how they were different and in what ways we are similar.
This particular study found that while baby chimps and baby humans have no difference in motor skills, intelligencer, or communication skills. When it came to what they called Social skills, the human babies were worlds apart.
There was another news report I saw recently which said that despite assumptions of similarities between humans and animals, recent studies have found that such comparisons were not scientifically sound.
I would not be surprised if in a few years the classifications change, and instead of having minerals,plants, and animals you will have minerals, plants, animals and humans.
edit: links
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/...70906144113.htm
Shiri2007-10-03 06:54:39
I don't see how having miles better social skills - which I think is correct - makes us "different" to other animals in any way other than the way in which, say, some snakes having hypersensitive heat detection makes them "different" to other animals. "Social skills", as a positive or negative factor, doesn't have anything to do with what makes an animal an animal and not a plant or some seperate category altogether.
Xavius2007-10-03 06:55:08
No no, see, clearly regenerative lizards are the chosen species. No other animals have the divine grace to regrow limbs and live a full and healthy life after a crippling injury. If we did a scientific of human babies and chameleon babies and hacked off two of the limbs of each, I think you'd find the humans lacking in something more noticeable than social skills.
Daganev2007-10-03 07:01:55
Yes, both of you are correctly stating the previously prevailing thoughts about humans and animals from the past few decades(century?).
However, currently, those thoughts are changing.
There is a reason why a Computer is say, "artificial" or Factories are able to "harm nature", while a beaver dam is not "artificial" and bacteria and rust do not "harm nature." It is built into human language, and now after some 200 years of scientific progress, they are finding confirmation to what has always existed within our collective languages.
However, currently, those thoughts are changing.
There is a reason why a Computer is say, "artificial" or Factories are able to "harm nature", while a beaver dam is not "artificial" and bacteria and rust do not "harm nature." It is built into human language, and now after some 200 years of scientific progress, they are finding confirmation to what has always existed within our collective languages.
Shiri2007-10-03 07:09:51
That sounds suspiciously like the exact reverse of what I'm currently reading (The God Delusion, I'm a while late.) Can you link me to wherever you found that point of view, please, so I can get a better look at it? No worries if you don't remember, but I'm curious.
