Author
|
Topic: The first _good_ argument for god (Read 11120 times)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 491
|
I take issue with this part though:
"2.4 What caused the universe?
The universe, by definition, is space, time, and matter. Anything consisting of, or limited by, space, time, and matter is itself merely a component part of that natural universe. So whatever caused the universe could not have consisted of those characteristics which it subsequently produced. Therefore we reason the causal force has to be:
independent of space (limitless),
independent of time (eternal), and
independent of matter (immaterial). "
This part is ridiculous imo. It's a huge supposition based on, well nothing. I actually roughly agree that reasoning. Whatever created this universe, it could not be a part of it, because the universe was not around yet. If space did not exist, the Cause can not have been part of space. If time did not exist, the Cause can not have existed in time. If matter did not exist, the Cause can not have consisted of matter.
What you're saying makes sense, good sense in fact. The problems are the "ifs". Scientists seem to be overstepping and supposing a little too much here imo. We can measure matter and energy and we can even see celestial objects moving apart, even at an ever increasing rate, but we can't really measure space apart from the energy and matter within it. Do we really know, or have good reason to believe that space itself is expanding? What is our scientific reasoning and/or evidence that space didn't exist at one point then came into existance at another? Same goes for time.
There is evidence suggesting that matter and energy had a beginning. None for space and time that I'm aware of.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 11:45:17 pm by RTyp06 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 319
Rottem Tomatoes
|
To make the statement, you need a definition of "I".
Fine, "the being making the statement". What this being exactly is cannot be known to witnesses, but if the being is existing and intelligent, it can know that about itself. And that's the only absolute truth one could ever know. 
Space is just a conceptualization of the properties of matter.
Yay, physics! I've never really studied it, yet I'm fascinated by it. So you're saying the spacetime continuum does not exist without particles? I always thought those two things were separate features of the universe (a third one being the four/three/one forces).
Edit:
Do we really know, or have good reason to believe that space itself is expanding?
I read once that according to the Big Bang theory, not only matter and energy but also space were condenced in a tiny place.
There is evidence suggesting that matter and energy had a beginning.
The evidence only suggests that it all started from a tiny condensed space. Nothing's to say it wasn't there forever before the Big Bang.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 10:09:21 am by alephresh »
|
Logged
|
Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings / Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips / These are a few of my favorite ships! © meep-eep
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valaggar Redux
Guest
|
It is impossible to define existence. It is a basic, indivisible concept. The very laws of logic are based upon the concept of "existence", which leaves us without any way to define existence without falling into circularity. We cannot escape this system, and within this system it does not make sense that existence can be relative (though it does make sense to claim that the knowledge of whether something exists or not is relative), as it is against the very notion of existence.
Defining the self is in itself a very vague endeavor. There is nothing palpable about the self, there is no property of it that can be found in anything else, so not only do we not have anything in terms of which to define the self, but we don't even know what to look for! The self may be defined as "a conceptualization of the resources at the command of the brain at any given moment", for instance, but this definition is still horribly vague. Is "the concept of" the computer I am writing of a resource at the command of my brain? Is "the concept of" my anaesthetised leg a part of my self?
About space being merely a conceptualization of the totality of occupiable positions: You also need to add "and of the connections between them" at the end of your definition to be correct (suppose we have a set of positions, S1, S2, S3 etc. - this doesn't yet tell us which position will a given particle with a given position jump to under given circumstances; we need to consider the relations between the different positions) and you simply have a different view of the same reality. One could say that matter is a conceptualization of the properties of space and he would be just as right or wrong as you.
I suppose it would make sense to define a vacuum as a "lack of any particles with the given properties" (properties of being in a certain area, for instance) - in which case, if there are no particles at all, every possible vacuum exists by definition.
I actually don't think it would make that much sense, at least not the way you word it. Is "the lack of any particles with the property of having a mass of 5 kg" a vacuum?
Maybe you mean that "a vacuum is a set of juxtaposed positions that are not a property of any given particle"? In which case vacuum can exist without any particles indeed.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 15, 2007, 03:11:34 pm by Valaggar Redux »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resh Aleph
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 319
Rottem Tomatoes
|
I suppose it would make sense to define a vacuum as a "lack of any particles with the given properties" (properties of being in a certain area, for instance) - in which case, if there are no particles at all, every possible vacuum exists by definition.
If I understand correctly, you're defining space as the sum of the locations of all particles (relative to one another), rather than some different physical entity that may or may not contain particles. That would imply that vacuums are not a part of space, so if I create a total vacuum, it will be a hole in space. It would also imply that space can theoretically have any shape.
Sounds good to me. 
It is impossible to define existence.
Hm... I'd say that something exists if it could be witnessed with a theoretical, boundless measuring tool. With this general definition, everything I imagine exists in some form, because one could witness it in my brain.
I'm challenging the claim that you can even know that.
But before you can even reason about it like you do, you need a few more definitions. "(a) being" (as you expressed "I" a "being"), "exist", "intelligent", and "know".
exist - as defined above
being - something that exists
intelligent - able to produce thought
know - realize that a true statement is indeed so
The reasoning: You can't possibly consider whether you exist or not if you don't exist, and you can't possibly consider anything if you are not intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Marines on Maulers and limpets on Earthlings / Bright Podship plasma and warm Kohr-Ah death rings /
Shofixti Scouts doing gravity whips / These are a few of my favorite ships! © meep-eep
|
|
|
|
