tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8430950243907462561..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Can cosmology prove or disprove creation? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46840651963877829162017-11-02T10:15:32.805-07:002017-11-02T10:15:32.805-07:00In the lecture I attended, at least, Vilenkin neve...In the lecture I attended, at least, Vilenkin never said that the universe pops out of absolute nothing. He said there is no answer to “What happened before inflation?” The beginning may have been spontaneous, from nothing. But as I wrote above, he said that "nothing" does not refer to absolute absence but to an inherently unstable state. I don't know where the Vilenkin quote came from that was used in the article linked in the OP, but during the two hours I was present, it was made clear that "nothing" was some special kind of physic-y nothing that I don't know enough about to explain. "lowest energy states or vacua" is probably what he meant, since he spoke a lot about a false vacuum. And he said that his work deals with what PRECEDED the Big Bang. Guth, he said, assumed that the early universe was in a state of false vacuum. I don't know whether that is the physics-y "nothing" that he meant.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68812985535231756812017-11-02T08:28:19.109-07:002017-11-02T08:28:19.109-07:00@ficino4ml:
"Vilenkin answered that by “noth...@ficino4ml:<br /><br />"Vilenkin answered that by “nothing,” physicists mean a state in which there is no matter. The state nevertheless can have properties."<br /><br />When physicists talk about "nothing" they usually mean (as Vilenkin does) lowest energy states or vacua. To confuse this with what Nothing really means -- the absence of any and all being -- is to trade in equivocation. There is nothing else that needs to be said.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29536557118320578502017-11-02T07:48:20.656-07:002017-11-02T07:48:20.656-07:00I have arguing that physicists do not mean true ab...I have arguing that physicists do not mean true absolute noting when they use the word "nothing." I've argued that for years because way back in 2001 I read it on a NASSA oR website by astronomer work for NASSA. David Albert's criticism of Krauss says the same thing. I've been told hundreds of times by as many atheists I know nothing about science because I said that. The major determinate of weather or not one knows science is agreement with atheism.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65108436926683453232017-11-02T06:08:34.518-07:002017-11-02T06:08:34.518-07:00As to Vilenkin and "nothing," I went to ...As to Vilenkin and "nothing," I went to a lecture of his on the theory of cosmic inflation three years ago. FWIW, during the Q-A, someone asked, "Is 'nothing' possible?" Vilenkin answered that by “nothing,” physicists mean a state in which there is no matter. The state nevertheless can have properties. <br /><br />Vilenkin talked about universes bubbling from a multiverse. From what I took away from that lecture - not all of which I had the background to understand - it sounded as though Vilenkin was NOT trying to say that the universe popped into existence from absolutely nothing.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40300704847554357012017-11-01T11:09:14.517-07:002017-11-01T11:09:14.517-07:00I really don't know how I got cross thread,I r...I really don't know how I got cross thread,I really did read it the opposite,I see taht now,sorry.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25222995366288979822017-11-01T10:59:22.552-07:002017-11-01T10:59:22.552-07:00I see the problem. good then we are on same page o...I see the problem. good then we are on same page on Boethius you should consult me more often. Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8092233710714103502017-11-01T10:18:12.423-07:002017-11-01T10:18:12.423-07:00@Joe Hinman:
"first my name is Joe not John....@Joe Hinman:<br /><br />"first my name is Joe not John."<br /><br />Ack, apologies for the mistake.<br /><br />"that is wrong,you are assuming Boethius must be wrong because he lived in pre scientific age, but he still answers the issue of foreknowledge and determinism, noting in science proves determinism, no scientific fact mandates determinism. he disproves the idea that foreknowledge means predestination. That is still a relevant issue because atheists use it as an alleged fallacy of God belief."<br /><br />Huh? Joe, you are *seriously* confused about what I am defending. I mean it; you have it all backwards. Amazing.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59918181059860680242017-11-01T09:32:58.599-07:002017-11-01T09:32:58.599-07:00part 2 of the piece liked above
Occam., Fine tun...part 2 of the piece liked above<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/11/best-evidence-ocam-and-fine-tuning.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Occam., Fine tuning, Best Evidence</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6842356120130713662017-11-01T09:29:50.519-07:002017-11-01T09:29:50.519-07:00rodrigues said...
@John Hinman:
first my name is ...rodrigues said...<br />@John Hinman:<br /><br /><b>first my name is Joe not John.</b><br /><br />"wrong on two counts"<br /><br />Your (1) is wrong; it is just a matter of reading Boethius or St. Augustine. This has nothing to do with "modern temproal theory" (sic.) or "scientific questions" or whatever. <br /><br /><b>that is wrong,you are assuming Boethius must be wrong because he lived in pre scientific age, but he still answers the issue of foreknowledge and determinism, noting in science proves determinism, no scientific fact mandates determinism. he disproves the idea that foreknowledge means predestination. That is still a relevant issue because atheists use it as an alleged fallacy of God belief.</b><br /><br /><br />Your (2) is not inconsistent with anything I said (I am well aware of the distinction thank you). As for (3), I talked of "Orthodox tradition"; I probably should have added "classical", so (3) is irrelevant.<br /><br /><b>I'm sure it is but Ill have to look</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59658999242942835592017-10-30T10:13:53.212-07:002017-10-30T10:13:53.212-07:00@John Hinman:
"wrong on two counts"
Yo...@John Hinman:<br /><br />"wrong on two counts"<br /><br />Your (1) is wrong; it is just a matter of reading Boethius or St. Augustine. This has nothing to do with "modern temproal theory" (sic.) or "scientific questions" or whatever. Your (2) is not inconsistent with anything I said (I am well aware of the distinction thank you). As for (3), I talked of "Orthodox tradition"; I probably should have added "classical", so (3) is irrelevant.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48006919148468261392017-10-30T09:47:05.320-07:002017-10-30T09:47:05.320-07:00rodrigues said...
@Joe Hinman:
"certianly it...rodrigues said...<br />@Joe Hinman:<br /><br />"certianly it does, that is what it means to say God is eternal."<br /><br />Certifiably is does *not*, and no that is not how the Orthodox tradition uses the word "eternal" when it applies it to God (the classical locus for all this are Boethius' "Consolation of Philosophy" and St. Augustine's "Confessions"). What it does say is that God is a-temporal, which is a *different* thing than eternal as Hugo is using the word. If the universe had a beginning, which is at least the common opinion in Christianity if not rightdown dogmatic teaching, then time also began and is not eternal in the backwards direction, so God *cannot* be eternal in Hugo's sense.<br /><br /><b>wrong on two counts,(1) you cannot establish a basic or your argument because they had nothing to compare it to,they had no knowledge of modern temproal theory they were not trying answer scientific questions.<br /><br />(2) a temporal is the same thing as not having time that is eternal. That means no starting point no ending point, That is beyond horizon , no time, it lasts always,that is closer to what we know about time than then is a never ending count of years.<br /><br />(3) I thin we could find modern theologians who talk about in any number of ways, even in the Christian tradition, Moltman for example thinks it;s year upon year,.</b><br /><br />"There is no point at which true absolute nothing is the putative state of affairs. If so the nothing could ever come to be"<br /><br />That is in the same family of arguments that Hugo tentatively suggested and I have no major beef beefs with it.<br /><br /><b>far out dude</b><br /><br />October 30, 2017 9:00 AMJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8678186180303300732017-10-30T09:00:09.973-07:002017-10-30T09:00:09.973-07:00@Joe Hinman:
"certifiably it does, that is w...@Joe Hinman:<br /><br />"certifiably it does, that is what it means to say God is eternal."<br /><br />Certifiably is does *not*, and no that is not how the Orthodox tradition uses the word "eternal" when it applies it to God (the classical locus for all this are Boethius' "Consolation of Philosophy" and St. Augustine's "Confessions"). What it does say is that God is a-temporal, which is a *different* thing than eternal as Hugo is using the word. If the universe had a beginning, which is at least the common opinion in Christianity if not rightdown dogmatic teaching, then time also began and is not eternal in the backwards direction, so God *cannot* be eternal in Hugo's sense.<br /><br />"There is no point at which true absolute nothing is the putative state of affairs. If so the nothing could ever come to be"<br /><br />That is in the same family of arguments that Hugo tentatively suggested and I have no major beef beefs with it.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60870025321865385822017-10-30T08:35:31.635-07:002017-10-30T08:35:31.635-07:00As prlude to my Transcendental Signifiers argument...<br /><br />As prlude to my Transcendental Signifiers argument for God I present this discussion about abductive approach to argument,<br /><br /><a href="http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2017/10/what-kind-of-evidence-is-best-part-1.html" rel="nofollow"><b>Metacrock's blog</b></a>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62554612530225628412017-10-30T08:06:54.827-07:002017-10-30T08:06:54.827-07:00Joe Hinman said...
Hugo Pelland said...
bmiller, g...Joe Hinman said...<br />Hugo Pelland said...<br />bmiller, grodrigues,<br />You are overlooking something here, which shows why your oversimplifications are not as certain as you put them. If nothing can come out of nothing, and given that there's something right now, this means there was always something. But the 'always' here implies some infinity, an eternal existence, and this is as impossible to justify as something from nothing. We cannot explain how something always was, how there were always some 'potentialities, properties, whether dispositional, causal or otherwise, etc.'<br /><br />(1) We don't have to. It';s still more logically based then something from nothing<br /><br />(2) I think we can. God is not subject to laws of physics, Even quantum states are not subject to Newtonian physics so conservation of energy,is not a factor here; clearly we are dealing witha rules change.<br /><br />It seems though that we agree that the latter is more likely, or at least makes more sense to us than something from nothing. But it's preposterous to claim that we can definitely pick the right interpretation of what existence is.<br /><br />I don't see why not,we are all experts at existing,been doing it all my life<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69622030849604953662017-10-30T08:04:33.468-07:002017-10-30T08:04:33.468-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71157560046652995322017-10-30T07:57:07.603-07:002017-10-30T07:57:07.603-07:00This is barely coherent babbling. What does it mea...This is barely coherent babbling. What does it mean to say "existence always existed"? Does it mean that no matter how far we go back in time, something or other has always existed? Orthodox Christianity does not say that anywhere, not even of God. <br /><br /><b>certifiably it does, that is what it means to say God is eternal. It is by no means gibberish or even hard to understand to say that being is eternal. There is no point at which true absolute nothing is the putative state of affairs. If so the nothing could ever come to be,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82815521666039138152017-10-30T04:44:29.897-07:002017-10-30T04:44:29.897-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
"That's funny... It was t...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />"That's funny... It was the sentences right after, which you addressed, gratuitous comment ;)"<br /><br />I understand that you may have some trouble knowing what pointing an error in an argument is, but I stand by my assertion. It can be checked and re-checked by anyone reading what you wrote. If you wish to double down, go ahead, from past transactions it does not surprise me. I certainly will not waste one more line with this.<br /><br />"Because it's an argument, it's not impossible?"<br /><br />I do not quite understand the question. You said and I quote "But the 'always' here implies some infinity, an eternal existence, and this is as impossible to justify as something from nothing." Presenting an argument for an "eternal existence" *is* a justification, therefore it is possible. Your assertion on the other hand, it is just that, a personal prejudice, possibly born out of ignorance, but with no argument to back it up.<br /><br />"But it's also a contradiction to claim that existence always existed, as it requires infinite time for us to be in the present, from the infinite past, hence we cannot exist. But we do. Contradiction."<br /><br />This is barely coherent babbling. What does it mean to say "existence always existed"? Does it mean that no matter how far we go back in time, something or other has always existed? Orthodox Christianity does not say that anywhere, not even of God. If you think it says that, than it is just one more thing you are ignorant of. What does it mean "requires infinite time for us to be in the present, from the infinite past"? Do you want to simply say that the Universe is eternal in the past? In that is what you want to say why not simply say it, instead of this convoluted crap? And how exactly is a universe infinite in the past direction a contradiction? Are you running the Kalaam argument? Craig does not say it is a *contradiction*, he says that it is metaphysically impossible. Maybe the distinction does not ultimately matter for your purposes, but since you quite obviously cannot construct a valid argument, who can tell?<br />grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18030821110729539532017-10-29T17:12:54.008-07:002017-10-29T17:12:54.008-07:00@grodrigues
"You have not pointed any error o...@grodrigues<br />"You have not pointed any error on my arguments or any simplification whatsoever so this is a gratuitous assertion."<br />That's funny... It was the sentences right after, which you addressed, gratuitous comment ;)<br /><br />"Since that is precisely what the arguments for the existence of God purport to do, no it is not impossible."<br /><br />Because it's an argument, it's not impossible?<br /><br />"I quite explicitly said about "something from nothing", "Contradiction". It is not a case of one being more likely than the other (whatever "more likely" even means) as there is no parity between the two options. So no, we do not agree."<br /><br />But it's also a contradiction to claim that existence always existed, as it requires infinite time for us to be in the present, from the infinite past, hence we cannot exist. But we do. Contradiction.<br /><br />I agree that there is no parity, but honestly cannot really say why with confidence. It just seems plausible that existence always existed. What we do disagree on is our confidence level apparently.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85906350454136765842017-10-29T16:53:06.566-07:002017-10-29T16:53:06.566-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
"You are overlooking somethin...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />"You are overlooking something here, which shows why your oversimplifications are not as certain as you put them."<br /><br />You have not pointed any error on my arguments or any simplification whatsoever so this is a gratuitous assertion.<br /><br />"But the 'always' here implies some infinity, an eternal existence, and this is as impossible to justify as something from nothing."<br /><br />Since that is precisely what the arguments for the existence of God purport to do, no it is not impossible. In fact, you have just sketched the beginnings (although imprecisely and liable to misleading) of one famous such argument.<br /><br />"It seems though that we agree that the latter is more likely, or at least makes more sense to us than something from nothing."<br /><br />I quite explicitly said about "something from nothing", "Contradiction". It is not a case of one being more likely than the other (whatever "more likely" even means) as there is no parity between the two options. So no, we do not agree.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8550912605757247462017-10-29T16:30:14.882-07:002017-10-29T16:30:14.882-07:00bmiller, grodrigues,
You are overlooking something...bmiller, grodrigues,<br />You are overlooking something here, which shows why your oversimplifications are not as certain as you put them. If nothing can come out of nothing, and given that there's something right now, this means there was always something. But the 'always' here implies some infinity, an eternal existence, and this is as impossible to justify as something from nothing. We cannot explain how something always was, how there were always some 'potentialities, properties, whether dispositional, causal or otherwise, etc.'<br /><br />It seems though that we agree that the latter is more likely, or at least makes more sense to us than something from nothing. But it's preposterous to claim that we can definitely pick the right interpretation of what existence is.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53510673287573704842017-10-28T13:14:48.404-07:002017-10-28T13:14:48.404-07:00@bmiller:
"So if one thinks nothing can prod...@bmiller:<br /><br />"So if one thinks nothing can produce something he really is making something out of nothing."<br /><br />It is worse than that; it means that Nothing has potentialities, properties, whether dispositional, causal or otherwise, etc. But only being(s) are the bearers of potentialities, properties, whether dispositional, causal or otherwise, etc. which implies that Nothing has being, therefore it is not Nothing. Contradiction.<br /><br />There is no deep mystery here; just muddled, confused thinking.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55110670006321786022017-10-28T13:05:00.394-07:002017-10-28T13:05:00.394-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73147304830112867472017-10-28T12:46:23.309-07:002017-10-28T12:46:23.309-07:00@Hugo,
Basically, let me restate what I am trying...@Hugo,<br /><br /><b>Basically, let me restate what I am trying to point out here: we don't know whether nothing produces nothing, because we can't define nothing properly.</b><br /><br />I'll leave you with your opinion. <br /><br />This is mine:<br />Nothing is non-existence itself. Since it is non-being it has no essence, no properties, no abilities, etc and all of the attributes we assign to material and immaterial things. Parmenides famously said that we can only speak of things that exist in some sense, so we can't even speak of nothing. So if one thinks nothing can produce something he really is <i>making something out of nothing</i> 😉bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37912214296472658682017-10-28T11:53:28.254-07:002017-10-28T11:53:28.254-07:00"Not that there's anything wrong with tha..."Not that there's anything wrong with that!"Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91087910427983107342017-10-28T11:45:51.123-07:002017-10-28T11:45:51.123-07:00Yadda, yadda, yadda :-)Yadda, yadda, yadda :-)bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.com