--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Barry > > > > Me and Curtis, not so much. We don't hold much of anyone's > > > > declarations to be Truth, just because they said them. > > > > > > Judy > > > Curtis isn't questioning the premise that the universe > > > had a beginning, actually. > > > > > > I hadn't been but in my most recent post I may be changing > > > my mind. Although the universe in its present form is > > > thought to have a beginning and may have a starting point, > > > the matter contained in it may not. It may have all been > > > contained in the inconceivable density of the singularity > > > that existed before the big bang. So the biggest problem > > > with John's premise might be the assumption that we know of > > > anything that can be said to have begun in an ultimate > > > sense. > > > > I think all this amounts to a big fat red herring, > > actually, since "the universe" is defined as what came > > into existence--what began to exist--only with the > > big bang. > > Seems like an arbitrary point. We just don't know enough > about what the state was before.
We don't know *anything* beyond the fact that a singularity appeared and expanded. "The universe" is what we can know something about, and it came into existence with the big bang. > Maybe this is like high tide of the ocean, would you call > it an ocean only when it hit your sand castle on the beach? No, because you know something about what's out there before it hits the sand castle. > And this is all due to the imprecision of the premise which > you highlight again below. The premise is logically precise; it only becomes funky once you try to drag science into it. > > But this is what Barry is questioning. He's a > > proponent of the old "steady-state" theory, which had > > some currency awhile back but has since been pretty > > much discredited in favor of the big bang theory, > > which was developed on the basis of observational data > > that wasn't available to the steady-state folks. > > > > (Barry isn't aware that there ever *was* a steady-state > > theory, though. He believes that "human beings seem to > > find it impossible to conceive of the universe *not* > > having a beginning," much less to have an actual theory > > that it had no beginning.) > > > > In any case, the phrase "before the big bang" is > > distinctly iffy, given that time itself is said to > > have been created in the big bang. (Time *and* space, > > in fact, along with matter and energy.) > > This makes my head hurt. It's worse than quantum mechanics. It's virtually impossible to talk about it at all. > It also highlights how lame the presupposition is in this > argument. Not really. As I said in my subsequent post, it means you can only address the syllogism using philosophical logic; you can't bring science into it, because science is completely silent on the issue. > > > And causes are not needed once you know how matter > > > and energy operate under those conditions. > > > > This would depend on how you define "cause." Matter > > and energy are also created in the big bang. The issue > > would be whether the potential of the singularity to > > manifest as the universe can be considered a "material > > cause," in Aristotle's Four Causes formulation. > > I complained about the lack of defined terms in the beginning. > I agree. Actually the "material cause" business is irrelevant, given what I just found out about the singularity, i.e., that it's considered the starting point of the big bang, not what existed "before" the big bang. > > I'm curious to know if you're sticking to this from > > one of your earlier posts in the thread: > > > > > In the case of existence itself, it may have primacy > > > without needing a cause. > > I am using existence imprecisely here. I probably should > have said matter. I don't even know what the word > "existence" means outside a specific context. OK, because what you seemed to be suggesting is what we call "Being" or "Beingness" in the TM context: Existence Itself. It's also known as the Prime Mover or the First Cause--i.e., exactly what the syllogism attempts to prove! I just thought that was a funny slip. > > Also wondering if you're willing to retract your > > original "fallacious inductive reasoning" claim, now > > that you've had at least a bit of a look at the Craig > > argument. > > I'll have to look at it again. I don't think I labeled > it wrong. Look at the Craig argument again, you mean? May I suggest: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html Abstract: "Kalam cosmological arguments have recently been the subject of criticisms, at least inter alia, by physicists --Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking--and philosophers of science--Adolf Grünbaum. In a series of recent articles, William Craig has attempted to show that these criticisms are 'superficial, ill-conceived, and based on misunderstanding.' I argue that, while some of the discussion of Davies and Hakwing [sic] is not philosophically sophisticated, the points raised by Davies, Hawking and Grünbaum do suffice to undermine the dialectical efficacy of kalam cosmological arguments." IOW, it's an anti-Craig argument, but you'll get a good idea of the level of analysis necessary to attempt to refute Craig. > > I should think it would be interesting to accept the > > first premise of the syllogism just for the sake of > > the discussion, and see where John takes it, how he > > gets from there to the conclusion. I've seen some > > incredibly complex, sophisticated ways to do that. > > Don't know if John is going to use any of them, but > > I'd love to find out. > > I'm not getting much back and forth, just re-assertions > of the premise. I'm suggesting you just *accept* the first premise for purposes of the discussion and see where he takes it. > It has been fun to dig in an try to sort out what my > position is. But it really doesn't need the syllogism. > I think that is hokey. He should just assert that the > universe has a cause. It is the same thing without all > the hoops. Better minds than yours or mine, or John's for that matter, have considered it worthwhile taking on. > > > Nice job on presenting syllogisms. > > > > Thanks. Pretty basic stuff. > > I did one course in formal logic. It got pretty challenging > as it went on. Oh, boy, does it ever. I get lost very quickly beyond the simplest fundamentals. > It was the idea that logic doesn't generate but only > preserves truth that had the biggest impact on me. I wasn't aware anyone had ever suggested that logic *generates* truth, frankly.
