Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Unanswerable Questions... Or Incoherent Questions?


AndrewTomlinson

Recommended Posts

Very interesting analogy between money/papercurrency and personhood/body.  Of course the analogy is not perfect, but I like it!  John Dewey said that personality is socially constructed (as money is), and I think a lot of people would probably disagree with that.  Certainly lots of questions simply have no answers because they are loaded with false assumptions.  All questions come loaded with prior beliefs, but some questions come with false beliefs, or assumptions (whether true or false).  Those kinds of questions will be answered falsely or incompletely.  They certainly can be answered only provisionally.

 

Even if a question is a question that is properly framed, it may not have an answer, because the answer is outside of our ken.  This kind of a question is unanswerable not because it is not a good question, but because the answer is not within the zone of human intelligibility.  I definitely do not want to, prior to inquiry, call a question unanswerable, especially when science has made experience so manageable that was previously thought to be irrational.  "Do not block the way of inquiry."  However the assumption that all of the universe will be rational to us is not warranted.  As Hawking said:  "The loss of particles and information down black holes meant that the particles that came out were random. One could calculate probabilities, but one could not make any definite predictions. Thus, the future of the universe is not completely determined by the laws of science, and its present state, as Laplace thought. "

 

I think that the question "Is there a God" is one of those questions that are not answerable to us.  Some of us will say that there is, others of us will say that there is not.  One answer tends more than the other to block the path of inquiry.

 

ac215568d7a772e31d9c2612e6443c9c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientific method isn't the "end-all-be-all" of rational inquiry. Although I hope it will grow and evolve. Science has already lead us to theories that don't make intuitive sense, but I find it very difficult to contemplate any other method producing reliable theories. Perhaps time will tell.

 

This is wrong.  The scientific method is the end-all-be-all of rational inquiry.  There are no other methods that produce satisfaction, and if there were, they would be grafted onto to science to the degree that they work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The scientific method isn't the "end-all-be-all" of rational inquiry. Although I hope it will grow and evolve. Science has already lead us to theories that don't make intuitive sense, but I find it very difficult to contemplate any other method producing reliable theories. Perhaps time will tell.

 

This is wrong.  The scientific method is the end-all-be-all of rational inquiry.  There are no other methods that produce satisfaction, and if there were, they would be grafted onto to science to the degree that they work.

 

 

I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume we've already achieved the pinnacle of logical perfection in the scientific method. The human mind is such an inadequate thing, instinctively understanding the "here and now", but unable to properly grasp concepts that aren't directly observed with the senses. Especially when esoteric branches of science, like quantum mechanics, defy common sense. I do believe that there is no better method for drawing sound conclusions available to us. I'm just not convinced that it will always be so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you say quantum mechanics is esoteric? Much of our contemporary understanding of the universe stems from quantum mechanics. It's application is exceptionally broad and directly allows for the contemporary understanding of many fields such as chemistry, engineering and material sciences. Other broad fields such as biology are also directly impacted. In fact, you cannot even make it through a semester of lower level undergraduate general chemistry without appreciating quantum mechanics. Also remember, while quantum mechanics had esoteric beginnings as early as the 1920's it overhauled broad fields of chemistry and quantum mechanical models such as Hartree-Fock and the self consistent field predicted the periodic table and provided reasonable approximations of elemental atomic structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is wrong.  The scientific method is the end-all-be-all of rational inquiry.  There are no other methods that produce satisfaction, and if there were, they would be grafted onto to science to the degree that they work.

 

So you say. I often find myself dissatisfied by science and much more satisfied by other methods of inquiry. Science is very good for what it is good for. But it is not good for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Pantheory wrote: "So why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is not a possible state of existence concerning all of reality."

 

 

Having proposed this question in a pantheist group, that is the best attempt at an answer that came forward. Without cluing in on any one theory, the general idea is that if something exists now, then something had to have always existed because something = something, and absolute non-existence seems impossible. 

 

Existence exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything is impossible. 

 

That could actually be why existence even exists in the first place. There's no alternative, I agree with that logic.

 

So can science prove that non-existence is impossible?

 

That's one of the first things that comes to mind. Without proof, I'm not sure science can answer the question.  

 

Even if we suppose that existence exists because there's no alternative we're still starring at an infinite regress of existence which really can't be explained aside from just accepting it as mysterious and no other option. The question of ultimate's always seems to end in mystery. I see that as a legit unanswerable question.

 

A point of order, Josh.

 

Observational science cannot provide proof.  In science, proofs only exist in math.  The other sciences can provide evidence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

So is it answerable in math? 

 

Seems like a philosophical based position to suggest that existence exists because absolute non-existence is impossible. 

 

 

Sorry for not explaining better Josh.

.

.

.

My position on this (and I hope to be corrected if it's wrong) is that a proof constitutes absolute and irrefutable knowledge of a given thing.  It's also my understanding that such knowledge can be arrived at thru math.  Hence my qualification of the difference between math and observational science.  As I understand it, except for math, all other branches of the sciences are considered to be tentative and incomplete - always able to improved upon by better observations and better theories.

 

What math can't currently do is to give us proof (absolute knowledge) about the universe and existence.

That's not because math isn't up to the job, it's just that our observations of the universe are still tentative and incomplete.  It's also possible that they will always be incomplete.  

 

So the current situation looks like this.

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301042

Inflation Without A Beginning : A Null Boundary Proposal

Anthony Aguirre & Steven Gratton.

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf

Did The Universe Have A Beginning?

Audrey Mithani & Alexander Vilenkin

 

Here we have two science papers on the same subject that come to opposite conclusions.

The first concludes that there need not have been an actual 'beginning' and that inflation is eternal into the past as well as into the future.   The second concludes that while inflation is future-eternal, it's incomplete in the past and so must have required a true beginning.  Because of the incompleteness of our data we have the mathematical wiggle room to come to two, mutually-exclusive conclusions about the universe.  The problem doesn't lie in the math - it lies in the data.

.

.

.

So, the answer to your question, "Is it [insert question about non-existence] answerable in math?" ...is Yes and NO.

 

According to Aguirre and Gratton, non-existence seems to be a mathematical impossibility.

 

According to Mithani and Vilenkin, non-existence seems to be a mathematical necessity. 

 

Wendyshrug.gif

.

.

.

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

3 Did the universe have a beginning?

 

At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.

 

2Note that we use the term “beginning” as being synonymous to past incompleteness. - Vilenkin

 

 

I think I have a pretty good handle on this issue. What you've presented is relative to the universe itself, whether or not there was an initial singularity and things that pertain to WLC's theological arguments. But beyond those arguments is the deeper issue of mere existence that I'm addressing. In both mathematical scenarios the existence of something before any assigned beginning is unavoidable. I've gone there with apologists who want to just focus in on the WLC beginning issue. 

 

The universe as a "cosmic egg" waiting to be born is Vilenkin's way of admitting that something = something and the idea of nothing = something doesn't even appear in his scenario. If the universe is not past eternal, then the unavoidable "cosmic egg" necessarily pre-dates the expansion of the universe and therefore some type of existence (potential universe) is required for existence to be happening now. 

 

Before the universe expanded, there's no real sign of absolute non-existence either way, either math. 

 

So from what I can see, the math agrees with the idea that "existence exists because absolute non-existence is not even possible." The potential has to exist even the most conservative sounding scenario. 

 

But, does that really answer why anything exists at all? 

 

It's necessarily unavoidable that non-existence is impossible, but that really isn't an answer of meaning and purpose. What exists and has always existed does so beyond any meaning or purpose. That's why even when facing the answer, "existence exists because absolute non-existence is impossible" we haven't really answered the question in any meaningful way. Existence simply exists, without any real meaning or purpose. That applies to a past eternal universe just the same as a universe hatched from a cosmic egg of potential. Purpose and meaning sort of dissolve away.  

 

 

It's one question that can remain forever unanswerable by religion and science. 

 

Plug in God as existence and the same result applies: God exists because absolute non-God is impossible.

 

That is exactly what religionist's believe. And from this inquiry it starts to become obvious that their God is simply a metaphor for existence itself, thought of and conceived of as an eternal mind or supreme being that's omnipresent and so on. What's really omnipresent is just the existence of everything, which is necessarily present everywhere. 

 

They face the same problem where God renders the loss of meaning and purpose. Their can be no meaning, purpose, or reason for the existence of an eternal God that has always existed. He just exists, without any fixed explanation. They'll say it's beyond human thinking. Well, there you have it. The unanswerable question that primitive man faced framed as "God," modern secular man still faces in terms of natural existence via math and sciences. 

 

So none of what I raised is in any way flattering to theists. Just in case any one got the wrong impression by my questioning the limits of science. I'm questioning within a non-theistic frame work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is very juvenile concept i am about to use but numbers do not have a beginning or end. If you use the equation singularity = 0 seconds in time, right before the big bang then what was happening at -1? If you can figure out what the first and last numbers are and you can figure out the beginning and end?

 

What moment in time are we looking for as a reference point the beginning? I believe, correct me if i am wrong, we have no data yet for the exact time the big bang happened. So at the moment we can only prove up until then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Pantheory wrote: "So why is there something rather than nothing? Because nothing is not a possible state of existence concerning all of reality."

 

 

Having proposed this question in a pantheist group, that is the best attempt at an answer that came forward. Without cluing in on any one theory, the general idea is that if something exists now, then something had to have always existed because something = something, and absolute non-existence seems impossible. 

 

Existence exists, because the absolute non-existence of anything is impossible. 

 

That could actually be why existence even exists in the first place. There's no alternative, I agree with that logic.

 

So can science prove that non-existence is impossible?

 

That's one of the first things that comes to mind. Without proof, I'm not sure science can answer the question.  

 

Even if we suppose that existence exists because there's no alternative we're still starring at an infinite regress of existence which really can't be explained aside from just accepting it as mysterious and no other option. The question of ultimate's always seems to end in mystery. I see that as a legit unanswerable question.

 

A point of order, Josh.

 

Observational science cannot provide proof.  In science, proofs only exist in math.  The other sciences can provide evidence.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

So is it answerable in math? 

 

Seems like a philosophical based position to suggest that existence exists because absolute non-existence is impossible. 

 

I agree, the total non-existence of every is impossible.

 

3 Did the universe have a beginning?

 

I know this is very juvenile concept i am about to use but numbers do not have a beginning or end. If you use the equation singularity = 0 seconds in time, right before the big bang then what was happening at -1? If you can figure out what the first and last numbers are and you can figure out the beginning and end?

 

What moment in time are we looking for as a reference point the beginning? I believe, correct me if i am wrong, we have no data yet for the exact time the big bang happened. So at the moment we can only prove up until then?

 

The age of the universe, according to the model  I am presenting, is contrary to the BB model, with us being lost in time as well as lost in space. There would have been a far older finite beginning to the universe, no bang, no expansion, no dark matter, no dark energy, etc. smile.png

According to this proposal the beginning time of the universe is indeterminable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times do I have to say it, Pantheory?

 

None of the members participating in this thread are deconverting Christians.

You were never a born-again fundamentalist/evangelical Christian.

You have no experience base of deconversion from Christianity.

You've admitted that you have no knowledge of these things.

By your own admission you have nothing relevant to offer.

The only person you are here to serve is yourself.

You are simply serving your own agenda.

That is morally reprehensible.

You should stop!

.

.

.

Oh and btw, continuing to ignore something (this issue) and someone (me) is a sure sign that you know you are in the wrong.

 

Christians do it all the time and each time they do it we see their immorality in action.

 

So if I fail to prick your conscience, then that probably means you don't have one.

 

But you could grow one by doing the moral thing...

 

...which is leaving this forum for good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

BAA wrote: How many times do I have to say it, Pantheory?

 

Have we found another coherent, but unanswerable question? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BAA wrote: How many times do I have to say it, Pantheory?

 

Have we found another coherent, but unanswerable question? 

 

Hi Josh,

 

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? smile.png

 

Well I guess that settles it. Your model is not descriptive of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? smile.png

 

Well I guess that settles it. Your model is not descriptive of reality.

 

 

If the standard model of physics and cosmology, Inflation, GR, SR, QM, DM, DE seem logical to you then there would be no good reason to consider alternatives. If some of these don't make sense to the individual I believe one should at least consider that one or more of these could be wrong and to consider other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it a correct assumption that the main premises of of the Pan Theory has to call upon itself to exist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? smile.png

 

Well I guess that settles it. Your model is not descriptive of reality.

 

 

If the standard model of physics and cosmology, Inflation, GR, SR, QM, DM, DE seem logical to you then there would be no good reason to consider alternatives. If some of these don't make sense to the individual I believe one should at least consider that one or more of these could be wrong and to consider other possibilities.

 

 

Which individuals, Pantheory?

 

Which individuals should consider these other possibilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? smile.png

 

Well I guess that settles it. Your model is not descriptive of reality.

 

 

If the standard model of physics and cosmology, Inflation, GR, SR, QM, DM, DE seem logical to you then there would be no good reason to consider alternatives. If some of these don't make sense to the individual I believe one should at least consider that one or more of these could be wrong and to consider other possibilities.

 

 

Which individuals, Pantheory?

 

Which individuals should consider these other possibilities?

 

 

Certainly only those persons that might be interested in alternative explanations concerning only the biggest questions, should inquire.  Whereby mainsteam explanations for an inquiring person seem unsatisfying in one way or another. Of course these answers may not be more satisfying for some persons as the mainstream answers but all answers are entirely logic based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? smile.png

 

Well I guess that settles it. Your model is not descriptive of reality.

 

 

If the standard model of physics and cosmology, Inflation, GR, SR, QM, DM, DE seem logical to you then there would be no good reason to consider alternatives. If some of these don't make sense to the individual I believe one should at least consider that one or more of these could be wrong and to consider other possibilities.

 

 

Which individuals, Pantheory?

 

Which individuals should consider these other possibilities?

 

 

Certainly only those persons that might be interested in alternative explanations concerning only the biggest questions, should inquire.  Whereby mainsteam explanations for an inquiring person seem unsatisfying in one way or another. Of course these answers may not be more satisfying for some persons as the mainstream answers but all answers are entirely logic based.

 

 

That would then discount Christians who have come to this site for help and encouragement in deconverting from Christianity.

I can tell you now, from a position of knowledge and experience, (you have neither, btw) that mainstream explanations are the most satisfying for deconverting Christians.

 

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing to offer the very people this forum is meant to help.

Having written your own letter of departure Pantheory, it now remains for you to carry out the deed, close down your account and quit this forum asap.

 

Please do so with all speed! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

IMO there are many coherent unanswered questions in Big Bang cosmology and theoretical physics. As far as there being unanswerable questions, according to my own model, all questions can be simply answered, Even if my answers are more easily understood than the standard model, many or most of these answers would be considered hypothesis rather than theory by most theorists. .

 

If you have another question in mind ask away ? smile.png

 

Well I guess that settles it. Your model is not descriptive of reality.

 

 

If the standard model of physics and cosmology, Inflation, GR, SR, QM, DM, DE seem logical to you then there would be no good reason to consider alternatives. If some of these don't make sense to the individual I believe one should at least consider that one or more of these could be wrong and to consider other possibilities.

 

 

Which individuals, Pantheory?

 

Which individuals should consider these other possibilities?

 

 

Certainly only those persons that might be interested in alternative explanations concerning only the biggest questions, should inquire.  Whereby mainsteam explanations for an inquiring person seem unsatisfying in one way or another. Of course these answers may not be more satisfying for some persons as the mainstream answers but all answers are entirely logic based.

 

 

That would then discount Christians who have come to this site for help and encouragement in deconverting from Christianity.

I can tell you now, from a position of knowledge and experience, (you have neither, btw) that mainstream explanations are the most satisfying for deconverting Christians.

 

Thank you for confirming that you have nothing to offer the very people this forum is meant to help.

Having written your own letter of departure Pantheory, it now remains for you to carry out the deed, close down your account and quit this forum asap.

 

Please do so with all speed! 

 

 

 

A very great number of your postings are informative. Good for you. Ex-Christians come to this forum not only to help each other de-convert, but also to learn new understandings in science. Many, by their own words, have been agnostics and atheists for many years now. IMO many or most of these people are interested in intelligent conversations with many different objectives, not just de-conversion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

A very great number of your postings are informative. Good for you.

 

No Pantheory!  Not good for me.  Good for the Christians who come here to become Ex-Christians.

That is the express purpose of this forum, after all.  Something which you seem to find difficult to grasp.

 

Ex-Christians come to this forum not only to help each other de-convert, but also to learn new understandings in science.

 

No Pantheory!  You are dead wrong.

Ex-Christians do not come to this forum to help each other deconvert.  Christians come here to be helped by Ex-Christians.  This is the salient point which you fail to understand.  The best people to help Christians in this journey are those who were once Christians themselves.  That would be us, not you.  Nobody else comes anywhere near in terms of experience and knowledge.  

 

You are excluded from both groups on the grounds of having never been a fundamentalist/evangelical Christian and therefore not being an Ex-Christian either.   The fact that you do not understand who this forum serves and how it does so is ample testimony that you have no place and function here. 

 

Many, by their own words, have been agnostics and atheists for many years now.

 

Then by definition (the function of this forum), these people have no requirement for your services.

If they are agnostics and atheists, then they are no longer Christians and they are not using this forum to become Ex-Christians.  They have no need of your help.

 

By the same definition, the remainder are still Christians seeking to become Ex-Christians.

And the recent content of your posts clearly shows that you have no understanding of how to help them, no knowledge of how to help them and no experience with which to help them.  You are excluded and can be of no help to them.

 

IMO many or most of these people are interested in intelligent conversations with many different objectives, not just de-conversion.

 

But your opinion is wrong Pantheory.

You opinion is based on a complete misunderstanding of the function of this forum, who it serves and how they are served by it.   Those people with different objectives are the agnostics and atheists you mentioned above, right?  If you are seeking to serve only them, then what are you doing in a forum that is specifically dedicated to helping Christians become Ex-Christians?

 

See the problem now?

 

If you aren't here to serve the needs of Christians, then you have no role to play.

 

If you are here to serve the needs of only the agnostics and atheists, then your role falls outside of the remit of this forum.

.

.

.

This, in a nutshell, is why you should leave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.