It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That's not what you said in your premise. You said the universe has a beginning. Funny how you keep changing your argument. You can't prove the universe has a beginning via science, it's impossible right now. Can you prove the singularity ever had a beginning?
And again, this argument is faulty because there is no way to prove that there is a "greatest" possible being". It's 100% subjective bull#.
And that's precisely why it proves zilch. It basically says, "If XYZ, then A" Too bad you can't prove the IF part of it.
Exactly. It's a circular argument, which is fallacious logic. You have informed me of your opinions, sure.
Me: The way I am speaking about possible worlds is a form of semantics used in philosophy. A possible world is a complete way things might have gone, past, present, and future. It is an abstraction. There is a set of all possible worlds, and somewhere within this set is the actual world. There is also a set of impossible worlds, which are descriptions of reality that could never be actualized.
You: #2 is illogical. I don't care what apologetics you use to support it. How does it being possible mean it exists in some possible world? We don't live in a possible world. We live in THIS world and that is all that matters.
#3 is also false. How does a being existing in one possible world make it exist in all possible worlds? Another baseless connection that is completely bunk.
#3 is also false. How does a being existing in one possible world make it exist in all possible worlds? Another baseless connection that is completely bunk.
A possible world is a complete way things might have gone, past, present, and future, down to the last detail, everywhere in the universe. One such world is the actual world. Along with the actual world there are huge numbers of complete ways things might have gone differently.
This argument is illogical and I have debunked it before. You have to use semantics to the extreme to defend a view like this and there is no way to verify ANY of that, sorry. Typical philosophy guy that thinks he knows it all. The same argument could be used to support fairies or flying invisible crocodiles. So basically anything that could possibly exists, automatically does exist.
You are wrong. Something can be timeless / eternal without having infinite density or energy. They are different concepts but you are treating them as equal.
They are different concepts but you are treating them as equal. For example energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. This suggests that energy is timeless or eternal, not that there is an infinite amount of energy or spacetime.
I'm not talking about math functions, I'm talking about literally spacetime or energy/matter being infinite.
In general relativity, the shape of spacetime near a spherical mass is given by:
c^2 dtau^2 = left(1-frac[r_s][r]right)c^2dt^2 - left(1-frac[r_s][r]right)^[-1]dr^2 - r^2left(dtheta^2 + sin^2[(theta)]dphi^2right)
Now, unless you’re already a physicist, none of that should make any sense (there are reasons why it took Einstein 11 years to publish general relativity). But notice that, as ever, there’s a singularity at r=0. This is the vaunted “Singularity” inside of black holes that we hear so much about.
originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
A singularity is not an actual thing so no. A singularity is a mathematical concept which i consider to be useful fictions. By universe I mean the collection of all spacetime and matter. If spacetime is finite, then matter is finite. If they are finite that means they began. These nit picky responses are not an attempt at discussion but an attempt to boost your own ego. Can you prove the singularity isn't just the absence of nature, like the singularity when calculating the speed of water going down a drain is resolved simply by the absence of water?
The ontological argument isn't to prove the existence of the greatest possible being. It is to inform you of the realtionship between two statements. I mean you are literally just asserting opinions when I am following the rules of logic and discussing observational evidence?
Me: The way I am speaking about possible worlds is a form of semantics used in philosophy. A possible world is a complete way things might have gone, past, present, and future. It is an abstraction. There is a set of all possible worlds, and somewhere within this set is the actual world. There is also a set of impossible worlds, which are descriptions of reality that could never be actualized.
Because a MGB is a necessary entity by definition. The problem you are having is you think I am presenting this as a proof for God when I am presenting it as a proof of the equivalence of two statements about an abstract idea I am trying to describe to you.
A possible world is a complete way things might have gone, past, present, and future, down to the last detail, everywhere in the universe. One such world is the actual world. Along with the actual world there are huge numbers of complete ways things might have gone differently.
If spacetime has existed for a finite amount of time, it has not existed eternally.....I don't see how that is hard to understand...
That was my point. We can't even measure the first theorized singularity, so to make assumptions about its properties or how long it may have existed is pointless.
Its the math buddy. Its not an actual thing.....
(1): Everything not existing by necessity (i.e. everything that could fail to exist) owes its existence to something external to itself. (For example, planets, lightning, and humanity each owes existence to something else.)
(2): Something exists (call it “the Universe”) which is the sum of all these things which do not exist by necessity.
(3): Therefore, the Universe owes its existence to something external to itself.
(4): Whatever exists externally to the Universe obviously cannot itself be contingent (i.e. cannot be part of that sum).
(5): Therefore, whatever exists externally to the Universe is not contingent; by definition it exists of necessity. Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe owes its existence to something that exists by necessity.
originally posted by: cooperton
originally posted by: dfnj2015
An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.
There is no fake evidence. dinosaur fossils are found in the same layers as human remains (Assemblage of evidence). Carbon dating says dinosaurs are no older than 50,000 years old (Assembled information). And there are also countless dinosaur depictions in both art and literature that indicate humans lived alongside dinosaurs. The teachers of the law are still hellbent on defending an outdated theory for which the old heads have invested their entire lives - it will take a while before the obsolete theoretical dogma is realized as a house of cards...
Again, I'm not talking about math functions, I'm talking about what was there before the big bang. These aren't equal concepts.
The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.[2] The initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of the universe.
And no, if they are finite in energy, it does NOT mean they began. I already explained the difference between timeless and infinite, yet you still have no clue what I'm talking about. There could be a limited amount of energy and matter in the universe, but it may exist eternally since energy cannot be created or destroyed.
You are not discussing observational evidence. And no, just because something MIGHT possibly exist, doesn't mean it does.
It's called horsecrap because none of that actually exists, it is just mental gymnastics to push a world view as logical when it is the exact opposite. It's pure apologetic nonsense.
Wrong. It is not necessary by definition, it is assumed to be. You've repeated this nonsense 5 times in this response already. You are saying that "God exists" is equivalent to "God might possibly exist", which means you are claiming that god exists.
How do you not see this? If the statements are equal then god exists, and clearly this is not the case.
Even if those statements were related and the logic was sound it doesn't matter unless you can prove the premise.
That was my point. We can't even measure the first theorized singularity, so to make assumptions about its properties or how long it may have existed is pointless.
Same faulty logic as above. Statement #1 is pure speculation, especially when you factor in the fact that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which throws that statement right on it's head. Where did energy come from if it cannot be created?
Noether's theorem is an amazing result which lets physicists get conserved quantities from symmetries of the laws of nature. Time translation symmetry gives conservation of energy; space translation symmetry gives conservation of momentum; rotation symmetry gives conservation of angular momentum, and so on.
(2): Something exists (call it “the Universe”) which is the sum of all these things which do not exist by necessity.
#2 is PURE semantic drivel. The universe is just the sum of everything that exists. Therefor if god exists, then god must be included in that, or IT IS NOT THE SUM OF EVERYTHING.
What's the problem with the idea of a cyclical universe that doesn't begin or end? There is simply way too much we don't know to be throwing around assumptions about how the universe came about, or if it ever did.