Let's Get Metaphysical Baby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

It shows that time goes to negative infinity as the volume of the universe approaches a volume of zero (gravitational singularity). The volume never gets to zero but gets smaller and smaller (the further you go back in time, the slower the universe expanded). As you continue beyond the present space accelerates (gets larger faster than before). In this scenario, existence has ALWAYS existed. There would be no "before" existence. This seems consistent with what you have described of the Big Bang.

---

It's a nice graph but whether it corresponds to reality is unprovable since the Big Bang destroyed any trace of any "possible" existence prior to the Big Bang. Not saying that existence doesn't move up and down that curve but that current observations don't support it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Sorry, I figured you must be asking a different question because I had assumed we had answered that one already. You see how the question "why does existence exist?" automatically presupposes a creator, right?

---

Let's start with a creator-neutral posture. Our senses tell us that the universe exists. We don't know why or how the Big Bang occurred. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Sure, sounds reasonable.

Salty - I want to make one clear though. Objectivism doesn't mean that you all ideas can be divided into three categories: (1) validated, (2) invalidated, and (3) arbitrary. Validated and invalidated have been used to describe situations where perceptual evidence proves an idea conclusively true or false. Arbitrary deals with the situation where there is no evidence at all - just an assertion. There is actually a spectrum between validated and invalidated (and this is where keeping the context of concepts is most important).

An idea can have an intermediate status of "possible," "probable," and "certain." This is particularly important in cases in science and other fields where knowledge is gradually being developed. The accumulation of evidence can take time, so a concept can move from arbitrary to possible, to probable on to being validated.

"Possible" is a fair term for an idea where there is some, but not much EVIDENCE in favor of it and NOTHING known that contradicts it. If there is no evidence that supports an idea it is arbitrary.

"Probable" indicates a higher range of evidential continuum. Something is probable if a substantial body of evidence, although still inconclusive, support it.

"Certain" is STILL contextual. It is a verdict can be reached within a definite framework of evidence, and it stands or falls with the evidence. Certainty is when the context permits no other conclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

The First Way (Aquinas)

(Prime Mover) "It is clear that there are in this world things which are moved. Now, every object which is moved receives that movement from another. If the motor is itself moved, there must be another motor moving it, and after that yet another, and so on. But it is impossible to go on indefinitely, for then there would be no first motor at all, and consequently no movement" ("Contra Gentiles," ii. 33). This proof, like much of Thomas Aquinas's thought, is taken from Aristotle, whose "unmoved mover" forms the first recorded example of the cosmological argument for God's existence.

These are the problems:

1) the argument assumes that the starting point is a state of rest. There is no basis for that assumption, in which case, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that moving objects could initiate movements in other objects via collisions. Consider Newton's first law for a justification. And I should point out that both Newton and Galileo said it right when they identified the Aristotilean flaw in assuming a state of rest as a starting point.

2) the argument assumes stationary objects can't move other stationary objects. This fails the gravitational/magnetism tests. Objects can exert forces (gravitational, magnetic) on other objects even when not in direct contact or when in a fixed position. Therefore, even if you assume that the starting point of existence is a state of rest, there is no need for a higher power to explain the movements you want to explain. As such, you ONLY need 2 entities to have motion - both entities can act on each other without needing a third entity to act on one of them.

3) The laws of conservation of mass/energy tells us that mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Thus, no creation of existence (which includes mass and energy)

4) It would be philosophically impossible for a consciousness to precede existence. A consciousness must be aware of SOMETHING - and it cannot only be aware of itself. For a consciousness to be aware of itself it must first recongize some object of existence, then it can recognize its "recognition" of the object (thus recognizing its consciousness).

5) To create existence one must have knowledge of the objects one is creating. If existence did not precede consciousness, one would not have knowledge of anything to create existence with.

6) The prime mover argument reverses the law of causality on its head. Entities cause actions, not all entities are caused by actions. Thus some entities may be eternal.

7) Assuming you could overcome these assumptions, it is still arbitrary to say that a deity was necessary to enact the first movement.

---

To #1:

Assuming motion seems as arbitrary as assuming rest.

To #2:

No motion that we can observe is independent of other motion (we observe gravity, but these observations are made from a state of motion). The same can be said of magnetism.

To #3:

Not sure about this one...

To #4:

Are considering only physical existence? I'm not ready to concede that consciousness of oneself is imposslble.

To #5:

Here I'll need your definition of existence. Are we talking about material existence? What is your proof that one must have knowledge of what is being created. I think we can both agree that if a creator or prime mover exists, we cannot hand-cuff him with our perception of reality as his perception will be much different as he is the one who brought reality into being.

To #6:

Still got some research to do on the law of causality...

To #7:

I think this is semantics. I'm only trying to show that "something" had to cause the first movement. Whatever caused this movement woud clearly be different that anything we've perceived (unless you believe those religious wackos like johnnylightnin)...so, the mover's label is not important.

Aren't y'all glad I'm back!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnnylightnin

To #1:

Assuming motion seems as arbitrary as assuming rest.

To #2:

No motion that we can observe is independent of other motion (we observe gravity, but these observations are made from a state of motion). The same can be said of magnetism.

To #3:

Not sure about this one...

To #4:

Are considering only physical existence? I'm not ready to concede that consciousness of oneself is imposslble.

To #5:

Here I'll need your definition of existence. Are we talking about material existence? What is your proof that one must have knowledge of what is being created. I think we can both agree that if a creator or prime mover exists, we cannot hand-cuff him with our perception of reality as his perception will be much different as he is the one who brought reality into being.

To #6:

Still got some research to do on the law of causality...

To #7:

I think this is semantics. I'm only trying to show that "something" had to cause the first movement. Whatever caused this movement woud clearly be different that anything we've perceived (unless you believe those religious wackos like johnnylightnin)...so, the mover's label is not important.

Aren't y'all glad I'm back!

---

I AM glad that you are back. It was getting pretty dull around here.

#1
(a) It is not arbitrary, see point no. 2 which proves that you only need 2 objection and no first cause to create motion (gravity and magnetism being examples)
(b) If Aquianas's proof is predicated on an "assumption" then it is not really a proof. This is particularly when the assumption is acutally false. It actually makes more sense from a scientific perspective to 'hypothesize' that things were actually in motion from the start.

#2
Other actions may be occuring around us, but it is scientifically certain that 2 objects can act on each other without requiring any outside force (or first action). Think about these examples
(a) gravity - any 2 objects located near each other will exert gravitational forces with respece to each other.
(b) magnetism - not only do 2 magnetic objects interact with each other, but they also create electromagnetic fields that interact on other forces.
(c) molecular forces - and there are many of them, only require a single molecule or a couple of molecules in proximity for these forces to act on each other

In of the above mentioned forces is sufficient to "start" a chain of actions into progress, with none of them requiring a prime mover. The objects of existence in and of themselves are capable of starting the process. And this would be true if Aquinas's assumption of things being initially stationary is true.

#3
I will wait patiently on this one until someone wants to share a specific argument.

#4
Existence is everything. How could one be conscious of themselves without first recognizing that they are conscious of something else?

#5
Acts of creation are not random (and the Christian view is quite the opposite) - thus one would have to knowledge of what they are creating to create it. Where would such knowledge of the material entities and physical laws come from in the case of a creator deity? See epistemology thread for more information about how knowledge is attained. If you don't perceive an object you can't think about it (unless you imagine an object that has physical properties that are different from another object you have seen - in this case it still relies at least two other objects so that you can imagine how to 'differentiate' objects).

#6
I will wait on this one as well.

#7
Exactly, Aquinas's proof, IF it is true (and I think it is riddled with problems), only shows the necessity of a prime mover. It doesn't mean the prime mover is a deity. That was what I was trying to articulate. It would be arbitrary to try to predict what it was without SOME evidence. See epistemology thread.

Well, I am about to take a much needed vacation, so you guys will have to keep this up without me. Hopefully Randerizer can hold down the fort in my absence. Later

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

Salty - I want to make one clear though. Objectivism doesn't mean that you all ideas can be divided into three categories: (1) validated, (2) invalidated, and (3) arbitrary. Validated and invalidated have been used to describe situations where perceptual evidence proves an idea conclusively true or false. Arbitrary deals with the situation where there is no evidence at all - just an assertion. There is actually a spectrum between validated and invalidated (and this is where keeping the context of concepts is most important).

An idea can have an intermediate status of "possible," "probable," and "certain." This is particularly important in cases in science and other fields where knowledge is gradually being developed. The accumulation of evidence can take time, so a concept can move from arbitrary to possible, to probable on to being validated.

"Possible" is a fair term for an idea where there is some, but not much EVIDENCE in favor of it and NOTHING known that contradicts it. If there is no evidence that supports an idea it is arbitrary.

"Probable" indicates a higher range of evidential continuum. Something is probable if a substantial body of evidence, although still inconclusive, support it.

"Certain" is STILL contextual. It is a verdict can be reached within a definite framework of evidence, and it stands or falls with the evidence. Certainty is when the context permits no other conclusion.

---

Sounds reasonable.

Getting back to my notion that the Universe has attributes, I'll advance the idea that one of them is that the Universe has as one of its functions the creation of life, i.e., that life here on Earth is not an accident but is the result of the Universe achieving one of its prime objectives. Life appeared here on Earth almost as soon as it could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Sounds reasonable.

Getting back to my notion that the Universe has attributes, I'll advance the idea that one of them is that the Universe has as one of its functions the creation of life, i.e., that life here on Earth is not an accident but is the result of the Universe achieving one of its prime objectives. Life appeared here on Earth almost as soon as it could.

---

Out of curiosity, what is the current opinion of the age of the earth? As a follow-up, what is the current scientific opinion on the origin (timeframe) of life on earth?

And what is the age of the earth relative to the "age" of the universe, given current theories of the big bang, etc.? At the very least, how far back have we seen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Out of curiosity, what is the current opinion of the age of the earth? As a follow-up, what is the current scientific opinion on the origin (timeframe) of life on earth?

And what is the age of the earth relative to the "age" of the universe, given current theories of the big bang, etc.? At the very least, how far back have we seen?

---

Just some rough numbers. 4 billion for the age of the Earth. 14 billion for the age of the Universe (since the Big Bang). Life appeared on Earth about 300 to 500 million years after the formation of Earth.

I am getting these numbers from memory but think that they are fairly close.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Just some rough numbers. 4 billion for the age of the Earth. 14 billion for the age of the Universe (since the Big Bang). Life appeared on Earth about 300 to 500 million years after the formation of Earth.

I am getting these numbers from memory but think that they are fairly close.

---

Hmm., not sure those numbers coincide with your theory. Plus, the amount of life per unit of universal volume is small.

But I'd also say that it might be easier to reach that conclusion if you start with the notion that there is an objective to the universe. That, of course, is not a necessary assumption, although it is certainly a common one. People seem to search for a greater meaning, but I'm not sure that this means that there is one.

I find it especially curious that a God would create the universe, wait 10 billion years, then decide he wanted a planet for man, wait another 400 million years to decide he wanted bacteria, then however long it took to get to man, etc. If the goal of the universe was to create life, why so slow?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Guisslapp

I AM glad that you are back. It was getting pretty dull around here.

#1
(a) It is not arbitrary, see point no. 2 which proves that you only need 2 objection and no first cause to create motion (gravity and magnetism being examples)
(b) If Aquianas's proof is predicated on an "assumption" then it is not really a proof. This is particularly when the assumption is acutally false. It actually makes more sense from a scientific perspective to 'hypothesize' that things were actually in motion from the start.

#2
Other actions may be occuring around us, but it is scientifically certain that 2 objects can act on each other without requiring any outside force (or first action). Think about these examples
(a) gravity - any 2 objects located near each other will exert gravitational forces with respece to each other.
(b) magnetism - not only do 2 magnetic objects interact with each other, but they also create electromagnetic fields that interact on other forces.
(c) molecular forces - and there are many of them, only require a single molecule or a couple of molecules in proximity for these forces to act on each other

In of the above mentioned forces is sufficient to "start" a chain of actions into progress, with none of them requiring a prime mover. The objects of existence in and of themselves are capable of starting the process. And this would be true if Aquinas's assumption of things being initially stationary is true.

#3
I will wait patiently on this one until someone wants to share a specific argument.

#4
Existence is everything. How could one be conscious of themselves without first recognizing that they are conscious of something else?

#5
Acts of creation are not random (and the Christian view is quite the opposite) - thus one would have to knowledge of what they are creating to create it. Where would such knowledge of the material entities and physical laws come from in the case of a creator deity? See epistemology thread for more information about how knowledge is attained. If you don't perceive an object you can't think about it (unless you imagine an object that has physical properties that are different from another object you have seen - in this case it still relies at least two other objects so that you can imagine how to 'differentiate' objects).

#6
I will wait on this one as well.

#7
Exactly, Aquinas's proof, IF it is true (and I think it is riddled with problems), only shows the necessity of a prime mover. It doesn't mean the prime mover is a deity. That was what I was trying to articulate. It would be arbitrary to try to predict what it was without SOME evidence. See epistemology thread.

Well, I am about to take a much needed vacation, so you guys will have to keep this up without me. Hopefully Randerizer can hold down the fort in my absence. Later

---

#2 is something that we cannot observe as we cannot place ourselves or anything around us in a state of absolute rest (unless you believe in the ability to stop time).

#4 is speculative that doesn't seem to be proven by anything that I've read from you.

#5 is also speculative as no one has ever created from nothingness. Your assertion is arbitrary at worst and possible at best.

Lastly, although some call aquinas's five ways a proof, I believe it is actually more accurately described as his reasoning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by randerizer

Hmm., not sure those numbers coincide with your theory. Plus, the amount of life per unit of universal volume is small.

But I'd also say that it might be easier to reach that conclusion if you start with the notion that there is an objective to the universe. That, of course, is not a necessary assumption, although it is certainly a common one. People seem to search for a greater meaning, but I'm not sure that this means that there is one.

I find it especially curious that a God would create the universe, wait 10 billion years, then decide he wanted a planet for man, wait another 400 million years to decide he wanted bacteria, then however long it took to get to man, etc. If the goal of the universe was to create life, why so slow?

---

Who's talking about God? Certainly not me.

Who is searching for meaning when the facts speak for themselves?

It's true that the natural world is not in any hurry.........so what?

You could always say God's perception of time is different.

The age of the earth and the known universe would be hard to explain to a primitive human; the "six days" in Genesis would be easy for a simple human to understand. If you were trying to teach 5 year olds something important you wouldn't explain it in scientific words. Primitive man didn't know what bacteria or outer space was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saltydawg

Who's talking about God? Certainly not me.

Who is searching for meaning when the facts speak for themselves?

It's true that the natural world is not in any hurry.........so what?

---

I think the only facts in this matter are that 1) the universe exists and 2) life exists.

Sorry, not meaning to suggest you mean a God. But suggesting a purpose seems to call for a consciousness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs

You could always say God's perception of time is different.

The age of the earth and the known universe would be hard to explain to a primitive human; the "six days" in Genesis would be easy for a simple human to understand. If you were trying to teach 5 year olds something important you wouldn't explain it in scientific words. Primitive man didn't know what bacteria or outer space was.

---

God, being eternal, is not subject to time. Davis can explain it better than I can.