Posted on 05/17/2022 7:53:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
By that logic why can’t one say the universe always existed.
***There is scientific evidence that the universe is about 14billion years old.
You CAN say it’s always existed but the evidence doesn’t support it.
It’s a certainty that it was here long before me and will be here long after I’m gone.
The Big Bang was God snapping his fingers.
Is that Coppedge who generated that? I can’t find the reference.
“***There is scientific evidence that the universe is about 14billion years old.
You CAN say it’s always existed but the evidence doesn’t support it.”
That’s supposedly when the big bang occurred, but what came before that?
At this point the best you can say is “I don’t know”, just like 200 years ago we knew nothing about the big bang.
What we know and the evidence that supports it changes with time. Do you agree?
Read the Wikipedia link.
You have a lot of choices at the cafeteria of Philosophy of Mathematics.
—Artistic
—Platonism
—Godel’s variation of Platonism
—”Full blooded” Platonism
—Set-theoretic Platonism
—Mathematicism
—Logicism
—Formalism
—Conventionalism
—Intuitionism
—Constructivism
—Finitism
—Structuralism
—Embodied mind theories (my choice, btw)
—Aristotelian realism
—Psychologism
—Empiricism (my second choice fwiw)
—Fictionalism
—Social constructivism
I’m not sure. Several scientists have discussed it. This video demonstrates the math pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA
But whatever terms we use to encode the essence of ideas there are certainly two distinct, common, and competing ideas about evolution where one is guided by an intelligence and the other is not. However I do not think this an exclusive dichotomy. I take what you are getting at then is that Bergson's view does not quite align with either altogether and thus needs some special care to convey where words like "intelligence" and "consciousness" need to be avoided or given a specialized meaning in his system.
Lacking conviction in something you don’t know or are unsure of is a sign of rationality.
Atheists and religious fanatics fall in the same category - irrational beings.
Boogieman:“A god that is created is not a “big G God”,”
Aquila: So you’re saying God always existed. By that logic why can’t one say the universe always existed.
Kevmo: ***There is scientific evidence that the universe is about 14billion years old. You CAN say it’s always existed but the evidence doesn’t support it.”
That’s supposedly when the big bang occurred,
***Okay, then you accept my premise and what I had to say about your kinda fractured reasoning.
“He said that Homo Sapiens made great toys for children.”
I’ve often thought that God made us as a form of entertainment for them.
Every so often he throws us a curve and entertaines himself by watching all the dumb things we do.
“You have a lot of choices at the cafeteria of Philosophy of Mathematics.”
Sure, I’ll pick the one that says the people who make extraordinary claims that man invented math and it’s just a coincidence that it allows us to discover and simply express so many fundamental operating principles of the universe need to provide some extraordinary evidence. Otherwise we assume that mathematics exists independently of man, along with many other things in the universe, and we simply discovered it.
but what came before that?
***We don’t have much evidence. I wasn’t talking about what came before that, I was talking about up to that point. Beforehand, it becomes much more philosophical postulation than evidentiary, other than looking at what we can on the evidence of this side of the Big Bang. Kinda like looking at a bombed out building to determine the components of the bomb.
At this point the best you can say is “I don’t know”,
***And it is a completely irrelevant point to the current level of scientific understanding that the universe is about 14 billion years old, even you acknowledged that. I don’t care much about the rest of those prognostications because they’re just religious arguments with little weight one way or the other.
just like 200 years ago we knew nothing about the big bang.
***We don’t know much more about what happened before the big bang today than we did 200 years ago. You’re making kind of a huff&puff point that is useless to the evidence at hand.
What we know and the evidence that supports it changes with time. Do you agree?
***On this side of the big bang yes. But over the last 200 years we have scrutinized exactly zero about the other side of the big bang. So your point is miniscule, almost infinitessaly small.
“That’s supposedly when the big bang occurred,
***Okay, then you accept my premise and what I had to say about your kinda fractured reasoning.”
Uh?? No!
If the universe is everything that ever existed, that includes the thing that big-banged and anything that came before that.
By the way there are some theories that say that we live in an oscillating universe where you get expansion after the big bang and then after it stops expanding it contracts again into a tiny dot to then explode again. There are even more exotic theories.
At the moment the most rational position to take is that we don’t know much about the origin of the universe (if there even was one) and to just keep digging for an answer.
Aquila:“That’s supposedly when the big bang occurred,
Kevmo:***Okay, then you accept my premise and what I had to say about your kinda fractured reasoning.”
Uh?? No!
***Then why do you accept it when you say “That’s supposedly when the big bang occurred”? That is an acceptance of the data at hand ON THIS SIDE OF THE BIG BANG. I really don’t care much about the rest, which is why I chose to split that bullshiite off onto a separate post.
If the universe is everything that ever existed, that includes the thing that big-banged and anything that came before that.
***We can’t measure the thing that big-banged. We can measure the observable universe.
By the way there are some theories that say that we live in an oscillating universe where you get expansion after the big bang and then after it stops expanding it contracts again into a tiny dot to then explode again. There are even more exotic theories.
***I really don’t care much about that part. MEGO, Mine Eyes Glaze Over 🙄
At the moment the most rational position to take is that we don’t know much about the origin of the universe (if there even was one)
***Bullshiite. We know more and more about the origin in time of our universe with each passing year. The cosmologists are getting down to the first few milliseconds of time in the Big Bang before their math falls apart.
and to just keep digging for an answer.
***I think you like to cross across pre-big bang boundaries just a tad too much. I prefer to just look at the data we have. And BTW, when a math equation spits out 11 different universes it becomes useless, it’s no longer math, it’s no longer measurable.
“On this side of the big bang yes. But over the last 200 years we have scrutinized exactly zero about the other side of the big bang. So your point is miniscule, almost infinitessaly small.”
Actually the big bang theory is about 100 years old.
And even 200 years is nothing in historical terms. Look what we know now that we didn’t know two thousands years ago. Some things take time to understand and discover.
“The “weak omnipotence” argument would be that God has omnipotence, the ability to accomplish anything, BUT that God does not choose to automatically accomplish everything that He wants.”
The person I responded to said the world is not what the creator intended. You are arguing he chose it to be this way.
If it’s god’s choice, it is still omnipotent, just a jerk not worthy of worship.
Hopefully other folks are reading this discussion—because it is very relevant to the UFO topic.
Major advances in any civilization often require total overhaul of cherished assumptions—including mathematics and physics.
I would expect any highly advanced civilization to have mathematical concepts and tools that would be totally “impossible” to us—and it would be rather amusing if they were Platonist as well.
;-)
Actually the big bang theory is about 100 years old.
***So what? Mankind has been postulating about before the beginning of time for far longer than 200 years. Why do you keep bringing up irrelevancies? They don’t matter.
And even 200 years is nothing in historical terms.
***POTO: Pointing Out The Obvious. And also kind of yet another irrelevancy.
Look what we know now that we didn’t know two thousands years ago.
***Yeah, ON THIS SIDE of the big bang. You keep jumping across that boundary.
Some things take time to understand and discover.
***And over those 2 thousand years we have learnt almost zero about whatever might be on the other side of the big bang.
“The person I responded to said the world is not what the creator intended. You are arguing he chose it to be this way.”
I think that’s an oversimplification. Let’s say God has a choice to either:
a) create an essentially clockwork world where everything unfolds predictably and never in a way that goes against his wishes.
or
b) create a world in which there is an element outside of his control, and therefore a world in which things can happen that he didn’t intend.
If God chooses scenario B, then you could attribute everything that happens in the world to his choice, as you are arguing. But that neglects to take into account that God is not choosing the unintended consequences themselves, but rather choosing a type of universe in which unintended consequences are possible (or even inevitable). Those are two quite different choices.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.