Proof that evolution is the only answer

a reply to: Barcs

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?

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?

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#.

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?

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.

I mean you didn't even pay attention to what I was trying to say to you. Why would I continue the conversation if you aren't even trying to understand what I am saying. First its not to prove God its to prove a relationship between two statements. So you're right this argument alone doesn't get you anywhere but to a better understanding of the two statements in question.

Exactly. It's a circular argument, which is fallacious logic. You have informed me of your opinions, sure.

Circular arguments aren't bad when they are meant to inform you of the equivalence of two statements. Fact. If you don't know that two things are logically equivalent meaning they have the same truth conditions, then virtuous circularity is what is needed to make this clear. Circular reasoning isn't always vicious which is what you are saying. Go look up the difference between the two and get back to me I am done doing your research for you.

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.

This is what I am talking about you aren't even actually reading and understanding my responses to you. Why would I want to continue a discussion? You are obviously here to boost your intellectual ego so why bother responding. If you can't abstract you'll never get the argument and I can accept that.

#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.

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.

#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.

If you were actually reading you would have saw me explain possible world semantics to you and how it works. Do you know what a set is in math? Possible worlds are a complete way things might have gone past, present, future. You can think of a set of all possible worlds and a set of all impossible worlds. Inside the set of all possible worlds is the actual world.

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.

philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu...

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.

No and people who actually understand the argument can tell that you have never actually studied philosophy.

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.

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...

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.

Except for the fact that the law of conservation of energy is contingent upon spacetime and time symmetry. So no, you would like it to suggest that but it doesn't

I'm not talking about math functions, I'm talking about literally spacetime or energy/matter being infinite.

Whats funny is that you don't realize the initial singularity is referring to the math. The initial singularity is a gravitational singularity, the same kind we calculate at the center of blackholes.

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.

www.askamathematician.com...


Its the math buddy. Its not an actual thing.....

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?

Again, I'm not talking about math functions, I'm talking about what was there before the big bang. These aren't equal concepts. 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. Infinite time does not mean infinite energy or matter, they are 2 different concepts. That's not nitpicking, that's a fact. You just throw the word infinite around and romanticize it to mean everything is infinite or nothing is. It doesn't work that way.

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?

You are not discussing observational evidence. And no, just because something MIGHT possibly exist, doesn't mean it does. That is piss poor logic and I broke it down already. There is no relationship between the statement "God might be possible" and "God exists". Sorry, I don't care about the semantics. It is fallacious reasoning and honestly LOLworthy.

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.

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.

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.

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. Laughable what extremes you go to support a complete guess. Stop the semantics. Even if those statements were related and the logic was sound it doesn't matter unless you can prove the premise.

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.

Nobody cares. In reality there is one world. Possible world is a made up concept, it doesn't explain anything. You guys just abuse philosophy constantly to force your square peg in the round hole. Just stop. These arguments are not objective, they are guesswork.

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...

Again, I'm talking about the SINGULARITY prior to the big bang that contained everything in the universe. We simply do not know how long it existed before it expanded, but since time was born during the big bang, it's hard not to believe it was eternal or timeless. You don't know that it existed for a finite amount of time, you assume it.

Its the math buddy. Its not an actual thing.....

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.

(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.

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? #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. You can't just use an overarching term that encompasses everything and then turn it into it's own thing that requires an "external" source. 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.

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...

Really Coop? Dinosaur14ages.com? I'm sure that's a totally unbiased site there. If this is true, please post the research papers instead of bull# unverified claims by creationists. Last I checked those alleged findings were never allowed to be studied by actual scientists, but surely you have evidence that isn't just random claims on the internet on religious propaganda sites. Art proves nothing, aside from creativity. I remember when you posted that photoshopped civil war pterodactyl as evidence. I have art that depicts future worlds. I guess it must be true. *fires up Star Trek*

a reply to: Barcs

You make a very fair and valid request of cooperton. This helps to keep the discourse honest.

However

You were asked to provide the scientific research supporting your claim about the cave crickets. Still waiting for that... or you can just recant your statement for lack of any verifiable evidence. What's fair is fair.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I posted the article and there is separate thread on that topic. I can't find the research paper without a species name. I thought I already explained this. Either way my points still stand about natural selection, with or without the crickets. There are other species that have been observed in the wild to have changed the frequency of alleles to better adapt to an environment. The cave crickets from Venezuela aren't the first nor the last.

a reply to: Barcs

Um no, it was in this thread - with this post by You

Articles don't count as scientific evidence. You of all folks should know better than to try that line of BS. It's clear you have not a clue what goes into actually determining whether selection is at play or not. You know - the so called signals of selection that can be very elusive to track down in a genome.

What- You think it's enough to just look at what you assume is an adaptation and then claim natural selection did it without ever being questioned, simply because why? The definition of adaptation says it can only occur via selection?? That's not just bad science, but borderline pseudoscience.

Since when can we just blindly make claims without actual evidence? Why shouldn't you hold yourself to your own standards? Why do you think your right on this?

a reply to: Barcs

Again, I'm not talking about math functions, I'm talking about what was there before the big bang. These aren't equal concepts.

I get that you think you are talking about something else, but what I am trying to explain to you is that you are not. The initial singularity is a gravitational singularity. A singularity is just a function in which a parameter of the equation approaches infinity. In the case of gravitational singularities like the one for the big bang this parameter is density.

From Wiki:

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.

Now what I have been trying to get across to you is that physicist find singularities in their math equations all the time, but never during our observations of what the math describes do we see the concept of infinity expressed in nature. This is the reason for the example of water going down a drain. Water should move infinitely fast right over the drain according to the math. Instead what we observer is that familiar vortex that you see when draining the bathtub. The water is simply absent from the point at which it should move infinitely fast. Singularities are mathematical concepts that as far as we can tell are never actually exemplified in nature. In fact if you posit the absence of spacetime the idea of infinite density doesn't really make much sense. According to my research spacetime begins at 1 * 10 ^ -43 seconds there about. Once this occurs you have time translation symmetry and the law of conservation of energy takes hold.

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 see you have to constantly misrepresent my position in an attempt to argue. I didn't say finite energy. I said finite spacetime. If spacetime is finite that means you have a beginning and an end to spacetime, then our reality is not eternal. You are operating under the assumption that the law of conservation of energy is enacted by magic. It is contingent upon time translation symmetry via Noether's theorem.

You are not discussing observational evidence. And no, just because something MIGHT possibly exist, doesn't mean it does.

What you fail to realize is that I am not saying that this is the case for all things, but rather only things that exist by necessity. Because you fail to understand the idea of the actual world existing in the set of all possible worlds, so it is of no surprise that you cannot understand this. A necessary entity exist in all possible worlds by definition. So if it is possible(meaning it could exist in some world and is not impossible), then it exist in all worlds due to its essence containing the property of necessary existence. Some mathematicians, as I said earlier, argue for the existence of numbers in this way. I personally do not agree but people don't just apply this attribute to God is my point, it is something discussed about other things as well. The ontological argument isn't about evidence. I have already said it is about an abstraction about two statements.

I am discussing observational evidence when it comes to the kalam cosmological argument and the leibnizian contingency argument. You know the existence of finite spacetime, which I've given you numerous different evidences for that you just continue to ignore because they require you to agree with me.

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.

Its not apologetic nonsense. It is a form of speech in philosophy used to discuss modality. What you can't seem to wrap your head around is that a possible world is an abstraction and somewhere within these abstractions is one that is exemplified and we call that the actual world. Its the one we observe.

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.

It is not an assumption, it is part of what it means to be a maximally great being. If you remove that quality from the being in question and then refute the argument it is the very definition of a strawman fallacy as you are no longer attack the being we were originally discussing.

How do you not see this? If the statements are equal then god exists, and clearly this is not the case.

You see what you are telling me here is that you recognize that if the argument holds true and the relationship between these two statement is established via virtuous circularity then that means they have the same truth conditions, and as such if the statement "it is possible a MGB exist" is true, then the statement "a MGB exist" is also true. So yes what this argument shows is that if you accept one then in order to remain consistent you must accept the other. I don't see this as me claiming God exist for the very reason you specify later in your response:

Even if those statements were related and the logic was sound it doesn't matter unless you can prove the premise.

This is exactly why I have repeatedly told you that I am not presenting this as an argument for God, but as a proof for the logical equivalence of these statement because the logic is valid know this without question because I've seen it written out in symbollic logic many time. Each premise in this argument builds off the one before it, so ultimately they all depend on premise 1 being true. Without proving premise 1, the argument does nothing for us, but get us to understand that if God is possible then God is. In your case however, you have already conceded premise 1 when you said, "If the statements are equal then god exists, and clearly this is not the case." This tells us you think God to be possible, and you realize that if you accepted this argument showed the logical equivalence of these two statements then you would have to become some form of theist. At this point, I'd say its cognitive dissonance that makes you want to argue rather than having actual issues with the logic.

a reply to: Barcs

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.

No that was not your point. Even in this post you sit here and discuss it like its a real thing. Its just a function in our math equations that has a parameter approaching infinity, in the case of gravitational singularities this parameter is density. Its a mathematical concept. It very well could be that we see that in the math because there was nothing there, I've already given you a similar example.

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?

Is the first law of thermodynamics all you know, because you keep coming back to it even though I have already explained to you that we KNOW this is contingent upon time symmetry via Noether's Theorem, and that in order for the word energy to have any meaning you need space and time. A unit of energy is a Joule. It is measured as follows.

J = (kg * m^2)/s^2

You want to explain what energy is without spacetime? How do you have a metre without space or a seconds squared without time? You keep shouting something we all learn in 8th grade physics. The law of conversation of energy doesn't hold by magic:

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.

math.ucr.edu...

We also know via the Borde Guth Vilenkin Theorem that spacetime is finite. Other things that back up this theorem are the expanding universe, the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation afterglow(cosmic microwave background), the great galaxy seeds, and the theory of relativity. I mean Einstein divided by zero to avoid this very implication of his theory. It wasn't until he went to visit Hubble and saw the red shift for himself that he admitted to his mistakes.

Now again you are just showing us that you are not here to actually have a conversation about logic and evidence but rather you want to have your opinions heard and that is fine. The first premise just says things that are contingent depend on some prior set of circumstances, which is exactly what it means to be contingent. You are trying to say things that are obviously true aren't and it makes you look kind of silly.

(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.

You aren't reading very carefully. You seem old enough to know that the purpose of language is to communicate a specific message to another individual. If you keep butchering my sentences the conversation is never going to go anywhere but in circles. Premise 2 says something exist which is the summation of all contingent things. So remember premise 1 says contingent things depend on some prior set of circumstances, and now premise 2 says there is something that exist which is the sum of all these things that depend on prior sets of circumstances, lets just call that the Universe. Now I am sure you want to argue with this so I'll help you out. If you want to disprove premise 2 simply give us an example of something we observe within spacetime that doesn't depend upon a previous set of circumstances.

In no way does this argument say the universe is the sum of everything and God must be part of the sum. In fact it says quite the opposite. It says the universe is the sum of all contingent things, and the summation of only contingent items or states would also be contingent and therefore would rely upon something external to itself. However, since the Universe is the sum of all contingent things, whatever exist externally to the universe(or whatever the universe is dependent upon) cannot be contingent(i.e. part of that sum). Therefore, the universe owes existence to a necessary entity. Uh oh. See the loop here? God is by definition necessary this argument argues that the universe must owe its existence to something that is by definition necessary? See how this works one step leads to another. I don't see you doing anything of the sort with your position.

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.

Lol I have already told you this. The problem with the eternal cyclical universe is that the state of entropy we observe in the universe is to far to low. It is at odds with observations. Alexander Vilenkin, coauthor, of the BGV Theorem has a video on youtube where he says exactly this. In fact he also goes over the inflationary model in that as well. Its at about 14 minutes of 39ish minute video.