Does Evil Exist?

[stryper]

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

 

I didn't ask to be save.  I was simply thinking he might be interested in the turn this thread took. 

 

Further, you are no threat to me.   The few times that I have tried to engage you, I had to make your argument for you.  

 

You are doing the same thing here.  

 

 

Although, I will admit from our last interaction I did learn somethings that I didn't know before.   That said.  Without the normal back an forth of a conversation, it was mainly masturbatory. I did all the work.  It felt good at the end, but was ultimately pointless. 

 

Pretty much like most of the crap you post.  

[Adrianime]

Well, at least Stryper gets it.

[Skankboy]

Influencing a choice does not remove free will. People everyday decide not to do something despite proclivities to do them. Free will still holds.

 

Influencing maybe, "hardening the heart" sounds like an awful lot more than "influence".  Especially (in the pharaos case) where it was already established that we was going to let them go BEFORE god decided they needed a bit more whoopin'.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

 

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

Correct.

 

If there is no threat, no rescue is required.

 

But you need saving from the crisis that the eternal Multiverse puts your faith in - even if you'll go to your grave denying it.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible.

 

In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809095238

 

This means Creation had to of occurred.

 

 

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:28 AM

OrdinaryClay, on 05 Apr 2013 - 05:15, said:

 

 

raoul, on 04 Apr 2013 - 13:26, said:

The new evidence solidifies the singularity which is the creation point. All inflation was after the singularity. Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past. So yes there was still a creation point. The evidence is now even stronger for God.

 

False.

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly, Clay. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....gical_Principle

 

The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

Under the Cosmological Principle, all observers are of equal status.

Human's observe a singularity as the creation point of this universe and might conclude that nothing can precede this singularity.

We might also conclude that Chaotic Inflation can only proceed from the singularity onwards, into the future.

But, taking the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation into account, both of these would be false conclusions.

 

All observers will observe a singularity as the creation point of their respective portions of the greater Multiverse.

It would therefore be just as false of them to conclude that Chaotic Inflation began with them and extends only into their future.

Chaotic Inflation extends 'only into the future' for ALL regions of the Multiverse, no matter in which order these regions were inflated. 

 

In Chaotic Inflation, new regions inflate from previous ones and newer ones from them - eternally.  Chaotic Inflation is self-reproducing and once initiated, never ends.  Therefore, it is impossible to say where and when in this sequence our universe sits.

 

Therefore, our region (this observable universe) cannot be accorded the special status of the first region to be Inflated. 

Nor can we, as observers, be accorded the special status of being the reason why Chaotic Inflation was initiated in the first place.

Therefore, any claim that invokes a special status for us or for our portion of the Multiiverse, violates the equal status of all observers in the Multiverse.

Similarly, any claim that treats the 'our' singularity as the origin of all Chaotic Inflation, fails to take into account the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation.

 

All that can be safely said (within the remit of science) is that Chaotic Inflation exists, but the answers as to where, when, how and why it exists are... unknown.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Listen up, Clay!

 

The days when you could rely upon the cosmology of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin to support your Christian theology... are over.  

The days when you used of the 'past boundary' (singularity) in your arguments are now over.

Creatio ex nihilo and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are... over.

 

I did warn you that your time was running out... and here's the proof of it.

 

http://sci.esa.int/s...fobjectid=51551  

The latest results from the Planck satellite.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

"According to Planck's measurements, those fluctuations so far fit the predictions of the simplest model of inflation, invented by Andrei Linde of Stanford, to a T." 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf

Here's the paper constraining the parameters of Cosmic Inflation and discounting the Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's model.

 

http://congrexprojec...13a11/programme

Which is why it was Linde who gave his keynote talk, Fundamental Physics and the Formation of the Universe' yesterday, in the Netherlands. 

And why he's talking there today about, 'Chaotic Inflation and Model Building'.

 

http://en.wikipedia....aotic_inflation

Which is why the science tells us that we are living in a fractal Multiverse. 

(This Wiki page will need to be updated to take into account the new Planck data, the failure of Guth's model and the success of Linde's.)

 

Now Clay, since you're on record as writing that... science always argues to the best explanation.

Will you hold to that and embrace the new, best explanation cosmological science has to offer?

 

Waxing theological for a moment...

 

The Bible fails at Genesis 1:1 because our universe required no Creator. 

 

No Creator = No God, the Father.

No Father = No Son.

No Son = No Christ.

No Christ = No Christianity.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly Clay and then factor in the Fractal nature of the current best explanantion, which is

Linde's model of Chaotic Eternal Inflation - this has displaced Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

 

Keep up!

 

 

Inflation is a product of the singularity. The singularity is not a product of inflation. The idea that the singularity had a location is meaningless as space was created with the singularity.

 

Past eternal models have simply been proposed they have not replaced the hard mathematics of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

 

The multiverse is actually just a theory. There is no hard science that supports it yet. The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

Enlightened Self-Interest is foolishness.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you find it foolish?

 

No, one around you will be happy including the people you care about. It is a bombastic way of saying you are self absorbed. Yes, I'm fully aware you are obligated to deny this through qualification because I'm Christian so feel free.

[OrdinaryClay]

Objectively, no.

 

Subjectively to the human condition, yes.  There are things that have negative impact on human existance, society and individual freedom/happiness, we describe those as evil.  Good and evil exist in the same way that hot and cold exist.  They have no absolute value but can be described in relative terms.

Heat is not relative. It is absolute. That is why there is such a thing as absolute zero.

 

People say with the mouth that good and evil is relative, but do not with their actions.

[OrdinaryClay]

 

 

"OrdinaryClay"

centauri:

Ra includes ethical evil, not simply calamity or disaster.

 

Ra-

adj bad, evil bad, disagreeable, malignant bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery) evil, displeasing bad (of its kind - land, water, etc) bad (of value) worse than, worst (comparison) sad, unhappy evil (hurtful) bad, unkind (vicious in disposition) bad, evil, wicked (ethically) in general, of persons, of thoughts deeds, actions n m evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity evil, distress, adversity evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical) n f evil, misery, distress, injury evil, misery, distress evil, injury, wrong evil (ethical)

 

I just pointed out what the word means so repeating what I just said does not make your point stronger. The root Ra may mean moral evil but the context of the verse clearly portrays physical calamity.

 

The context of the verse is to show that God creates all things.

Trying to deny that doesn't make your point stronger.

Evil, including moral evil, did not spawn itself.

>>>>God did create all the circumstances we find ourselves in. He did foreknow exactly the way all of us would choose. He chose to create a world in which He knew how we would choose. This does not logicallly contradict free will. Moral evil emerges from free willed choices as demonstrated by Scripture, reason and logic.

lockquote>

Your form of reason and logic is to create reality through repetition.

And yet again you ignore scripture and contradict the Bible.

God does more than foreknow, he sets some things in place ahead of time.

 

Eph 1:11

In him we were also chosen,having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will,

 

According to HIS will, not their will.

 

We went through all of this a year ago and in typical Christian fashion, you disappear for long periods of time and then come back and start the same preaching all over again.

>Free will is a binary state. You either have free will or you don't. It is part of being human so all humans have free will.

 

Wishful thinking and denial of scripture doesn't make all humans have free will.

You have no idea how much God might have predestined people nor do you have any idea to what degree he manipulates behavior.

 

No amount of ignoring Scripture allows us to shift the blame away from ourselves. I have Scripture, reason and logic which tell me we are free willed beings who are culpable for our won actions with no excuse.

 

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

(Rom 1:20)

Ignoring scripture is your specialty.

Paul trips you up in Eph 1, Rom 8, and Rom 9.

Predestine means to determine in advance.

When predestination is in effect, you don't have a choice.

The choice in those cases was made by God, who is sovereign over all.

The clay pot has no right to question the potter.

Fur

thermore, your use of the word "free" is not accurate.

The Christian God will punish an improper choice with damnation or some other torture.

In order for a choice to be given under truly "free will", there is no punishment for the failure to make a particular choice.

Free means without charge.

The Christian God does not give free will regarding salvation, but instead gives an ultimatum.

This is not free choice but a conditional choice where threats of punishment are used to coerce a particular response.

 

Your reasoning here is a non sequitur. Just because there are consequence for our actions does not mean we still don't have a choice. The world is rife with people who make bad choices while knowing the terrible consequences and repercussions  to their choices.

Try reading what I wrote before you make an inane charge like this.

I clearly stated that you are misusing the word "free".

I did not write that choices don't exist for some people.

I wrote that in order for a choice to be "free" it cannot be an ultimatum.

Christian salvation is an ultimatum.

You either comply or suffer punishment.

That's not a free choice.

 

 

Ordinary Clay, after you are finished answering BAA on the multiverse, I would appreciate your answering this question.

 

If it should turn out that the Calvinist - or even the Thomistic - position on God's sovereignty and human choices is the biblical one, will you reject Christianity?  As you have framed the issues over many months, you seem to hold your assumption of human "free will" as a necessary part of your apologetic.

 

If your answer is "yes," I congratulate you on acknowledging a point on which the Christian system can be rejected.  We can then go on to investigate the evidence for the "free will" assumption.  That assumption is NOT entailed by "choices" in the Bible except under viciously question-begging construals of "choice."

 

If your answer is "no," then you don't need your "free will" assumption and should drop it.

 

 

My faith in Christ is not based on the intellectual nuances of free will. One day it will all be revealed. I hold to free will because it is the most logical given the entirety of Scripture, reason and logic.

[Astreja]

No, one around you will be happy including the people you care about. It is a bombastic way of saying you are self absorbed. Yes, I'm fully aware you are obligated to deny this through qualification because I'm Christian so feel free.

 

So you prefer lifeguards who don't know how to swim, OC?  Financial advisers who live in a rotting cardboard box under a bridge?  Police officers who keep getting beaten up by street punks?  Hairdressers who don't comb their own hair, and doctors who sneeze and wheeze their way across the emergency room floor?

 

Enlightened self-interest isn't an act of greed, IMO -- It's the realization that if you want to contribute something of value to the world, you have to be able to live and manifest that value yourself.  That's why the Christian mindset is its own worst enemy -- It promises the joy of heaven but preaches hell on earth, and encourages people to see themselves as filthy rags.

 

My faith in Christ is not based on the intellectual nuances of free will. One day it will all be revealed.

 

Bet you $1,000 USD that it will not be revealed, and that humanity will not witness the return of Jesus in either of our lifetimes. Yes, I'm serious about the thousand bucks.  If it comes to pass I'll fork over the dough, either to you or to a charity of your choice.  (To hold up your side of the bet, just bequeath $1,000 USD to your local animal rescue organization and we'll call it square, as I don't actually want the money Myself.)  Do we have a deal?

[bornagainathiest]

Inflation is a product of the singularity.

 

The omission of vital information from this sentence is a situation I will correct.

 

 

 

 

Under the necessary strictures of the Cosmological Principle, all observers within all regions of the Multiiverse will observe what appears to them to be a singularity - the creation point of their particular universe.  It is impossible to tell if theirs was the initial 'singularity' that started the process of Chaotic Inflation or not.  For all observers, Inflation is a product of their particular 'singularity'.  According to Linde, there have been more of these apparent 'singularities' created than the human mind can comprehend. 

 

So, which singularity were you refering to - the one that initiated the process of Chaotic Inflation or the one we observe at the apparent creation point of our universe?

 

The singularity is not a product of inflation.

 

Please choose your words more carefully Clay.

 

What you actually meant to write was that, the initial singularity (the one that actually began the process of chaotic Inflation) would not have been a product of inflation.  That would be a correct statement.  But, as I've pointed out several times now, it's impossible for any observer to categorically state that the 'singularity' they observe is the initial one.  Nor can they even say where, in the accelerating and endless process of universe inflation, their particular universe sits.

 

Therefore, the only coherent statement any observer can make is that their 'singularity' might or might not have been the product of inflation.  Unless you are talking about the initial singularity, this is the only safe conclusion to draw.

The idea that the singularity had a location is meaningless as space was created with the singularity.

Past eternal models have simply been proposed they have not replaced the hard mathematics of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

The multiverse is actually just a theory. There is no hard science that supports it yet. The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science.

  

Science argues to best explanation... isn't that what you say, Clay? Science's best explanation is that which best fits the data - making Linde's model the best explanation.  Or are you now saying that the best explanation is the math and hard science behind a theory that is not supported by the data?

  

Btw, what is this hard science you mention?  Please be specific.

 

BAA 

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

 

 

Paging BAA.....BAA please respond.

He cannot save you.

Correct.

 

If there is no threat, no rescue is required.

 

But you need saving from the crisis that the eternal Multiverse puts your faith in - even if you'll go to your grave denying it.

Guth, Vilenkin and Borde proved mathematically a past eternal inflation as not possible.

 

In this book Vilenkin covers it on page 175

http://www.amazon.com/Many-Worlds-One-Search-Universes/dp/0809095238

 

This means Creation had to of occurred.

 

 

Posted 05 April 2013 - 03:28 AM

OrdinaryClay, on 05 Apr 2013 - 05:15, said:

> 

 

raoul, on 04 Apr 2013 - 13:26, said:

The new evidence solidifies the singularity which is the creation point. All inflation was after the singularity. Eternal refers to eternal in the future not the past. So yes there was still a creation point. The evidence is now even stronger for God.

 

False.

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly, Clay. 

 

http://en.wikipedia....gical_Principle

 

The first implicit qualification is that "observers" means any observer at any location in the universe, not simply any human observer at any location on Earth: as Andrew Liddle puts it, "the cosmological principle [means that] the universe looks the same whoever and wherever you are."

 

Under the Cosmological Principle, all observers are of equal status.

Human's observe a singularity as the creation point of this universe and might conclude that nothing can precede this singularity.

We might also conclude that Chaotic Inflation can only proceed from the singularity onwards, into the future.

But, taking the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation into account, both of these would be false conclusions.

 

All observers will observe a singularity as the creation point of their respective portions of the greater Multiverse.

It would therefore be just as false of them to conclude that Chaotic Inflation began with them and extends only into their future.

Chaotic Inflation extends 'only into the future' for ALL regions of the Multiverse, no matter in which order these regions were inflated. 

 

In Chaotic Inflation, new regions inflate from previous ones and newer ones from them - eternally.  Chaotic Inflation is self-reproducing and once initiated, never ends.  Therefore, it is impossible to say where and when in this sequence our universe sits.

 

Therefore, our region (this observable universe) cannot be accorded the special status of the first region to be Inflated. 

Nor can we, as observers, be accorded the special status of being the reason why Chaotic Inflation was initiated in the first place.

Therefore, any claim that invokes a special status for us or for our portion of the Multiiverse, violates the equal status of all observers in the Multiverse.

Similarly, any claim that treats the 'our' singularity as the origin of all Chaotic Inflation, fails to take into account the self-reproducing nature of Chaotic Inflation.

 

All that can be safely said (within the remit of science) is that Chaotic Inflation exists, but the answers as to where, when, how and why it exists are... unknown.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Listen up, Clay!

 

The days when you could rely upon the cosmology of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin to support your Christian theology... are over.  

The days when you used of the 'past boundary' (singularity) in your arguments are now over.

Creatio ex nihilo and the Kalam Cosmological Argument are... over.

 

I did warn you that your time was running out... and here's the proof of it.

 

http://sci.esa.int/s...fobjectid=51551  

The latest results from the Planck satellite.

 

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

"According to Planck's measurements, those fluctuations so far fit the predictions of the simplest model of inflation, invented by Andrei Linde of Stanford, to a T." 

 

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf

Here's the paper constraining the parameters of Cosmic Inflation and discounting the Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's model.

 

http://congrexprojec...13a11/programme

Which is why it was Linde who gave his keynote talk, Fundamental Physics and the Formation of the Universe' yesterday, in the Netherlands. 

And why he's talking there today about, 'Chaotic Inflation and Model Building'.

 

http://en.wikipedia....aotic_inflation

Which is why the science tells us that we are living in a fractal Multiverse. 

(This Wiki page will need to be updated to take into account the new Planck data, the failure of Guth's model and the success of Linde's.)

 

Now Clay, since you're on record as writing that... science always argues to the best explanation.

Will you hold to that and embrace the new, best explanation cosmological science has to offer?

 

Waxing theological for a moment...

 

The Bible fails at Genesis 1:1 because our universe required no Creator. 

 

No Creator = No God, the Father.

No Father = No Son.

No Son = No Christ.

No Christ = No Christianity.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Apply the Cosmological Principle correctly Clay and then factor in the Fractal nature of the current best explanantion, which is

Linde's model of Chaotic Eternal Inflation - this has displaced Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

 

Keep up!

 

 

Inflation is a product of the singularity. The singularity is not a product of inflation. The idea that the singularity had a location is meaningless as space was created with the singularity.

 

Past eternal models have simply been proposed they have not replaced the hard mathematics of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

 

The multiverse is actually just a theory. There is no hard science that supports it yet. The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science.

 

Your first paragraph is viciously question-begging.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Inflation is a product of the singularity. The singularity is not a product of inflation. The idea that the singularity had a location is meaningless as space was created with the singularity.

 

Past eternal models have simply been proposed they have not replaced the hard mathematics of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

 

The multiverse is actually just a theory. There is no hard science that supports it yet. The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science.

 

Your first paragraph is viciously question-begging.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof"

 

"Inflation is a product of the singularity."  Proof required.

 

"The singularity is not a product of inflation."  Proof required.

 

The required proofs would constitute a good answer to my question, Clay.  You wrote... "The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science."  I asked you,   "Btw, what is this hard science you mention?  Please be specific."

 

Your propositions require proof. 

 

BAA.

[seeker001]

 

 

Enlightened Self-Interest is foolishness.

 

Out of curiosity, why do you find it foolish?

 

No, one around you will be happy including the people you care about. It is a bombastic way of saying you are self absorbed. Yes, I'm fully aware you are obligated to deny this through qualification because I'm Christian so feel free.

 

I am arguing with your logic and arguments presented, I'm not considering the fact that you are a Christian. Personally, I don't think your position as a Christian makes you less intelligent, we all have our reasons for believing as we do. I may not agree with some  of your logic and arguments, but it is nothing personal. 

 

With that said, how does enlightened self-interest result in other people becoming unhappy? From what I've read it seems to be based on karma, where what goes around comes around. Basically if you act like a douche the group as a whole will suffer and therefore treat you poorly in turn. If you treat others well and help others, people in turn will be more likely to help you out as well. There is an article on psychology today on the subject:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stronger-the-broken-places/201212/enlightened-self-interest

 

Yes it is a way of saying people are self-absorbed, but people do seek out what makes us feel happy. The feeling of sadness and pain is something people are wired to avoid, it is not a good feeling. This is not a bad thing. Seeking pleasure is a perfectly healthy thing to do in moderation, we all need to consider our emotional and physical well-being. If this energy can be channeled into doing into providing motivation to help others, I don't see how this is a bad thing at all. I know I'd rather see people taking pleasure in helping others, instead of taking pleasure in causing harm. Don't you?

[boftx]

My favorite example of Enlightened Self-Interest is the public school system.

 

Many people who do not or will never have children complain about having to pay taxes for public education. But, at least here in the US, it is in their true best interest to do so because it is vital to have children learn to be not only productive, responsible members of society, but also rational voters.

[bornagainathiest]

 Bump!

 

Inflation is a product of the singularity.

 

The omission of vital information from this sentence is a situation I will correct.

 

Under the necessary strictures of the Cosmological Principle, all observers within all regions of the Multiiverse will observe what appears to them to be a singularity - the creation point of their particular universe.  It is impossible to tell if theirs was the initial 'singularity' that started the process of Chaotic Inflation or not.  For all observers, Inflation is a product of their particular 'singularity'.  According to Linde, there have been more of these apparent 'singularities' created than the human mind can comprehend. 

 

So, which singularity were you refering to - the one that initiated the process of Chaotic Inflation or the one we observe at the apparent creation point of our universe?

 

The singularity is not a product of inflation.

 

Please choose your words more carefully Clay.

 

What you actually meant to write was that, the initial singularity (the one that actually began the process of chaotic Inflation) would not have been a product of inflation.  That would be a correct statement.  But, as I've pointed out several times now, it's impossible for any observer to categorically state that the 'singularity' they observe is the initial one.  Nor can they even say where, in the accelerating and endless process of universe inflation, their particular universe sits.

 

Therefore, the only coherent statement any observer can make is that their 'singularity' might or might not have been the product of inflation.  Unless you are talking about the initial singularity, this is the only safe conclusion to draw.

The idea that the singularity had a location is meaningless as space was created with the singularity.

 

Incorrect.

 

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf

SELF-REPRODUCING COSMOS appears as an extended

branching of inflationary bubbles. Changes in color represent

“mutations” in the laws of physics from parent

universes. The properties of space in each bubble do

not depend on the time when the bubble formed. In

this sense, the universe as a whole may be stationary,

even though the interior of each bubble can be described

by the big bang theory.

 

Each singularity causes it's own 'bubble' universe to inflate, creating space within each bubble.  The singularity inferred to exist at the creation point of our bubble universe is described by Big Bang Inflationary theory.  Every singularity within the multiverse is described by Chaotic Inflationary theory.

 

Past eternal models have simply been proposed they have not replaced the hard mathematics of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

Linde's model (past eternal or not) has replaced Guth, Borde & Vilenkin's.  The deciding factor was not the math, but the Planck data, which is best matched by Linde's model.

The multiverse is actually just a theory. There is no hard science that supports it yet. The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science.

  

Science argues to best explanation... isn't that what you say, Clay? Science's best explanation is that which best fits the data - making Linde's model the best explanation.  Or are you now saying that the best explanation is the math and hard science behind a theory that is not supported by the data?

  

Btw, what is this hard science you mention?  Please be specific.

 

BAA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

So, which singularity were you refering to - the one that initiated the process of Chaotic Inflation or the one we observe at the apparent creation point of our universe?

 

2.

Science argues to best explanation... isn't that what you say, Clay?

 

3.

Science's best explanation is that which best fits the data - making Linde's model the best explanation.  Or are you now saying that the best explanation is the math and hard science behind a theory that is not supported by the data?

 

4.

Btw, what is this hard science [re: the singularity] you mention?  Please be specific.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[OrdinaryClay]

 Bump!

 

Inflation is a product of the singularity.

 

The omission of vital information from this sentence is a situation I will correct.

 

Under the necessary strictures of the Cosmological Principle, all observers within all regions of the Multiiverse will observe what appears to them to be a singularity - the creation point of their particular universe.  It is impossible to tell if theirs was the initial 'singularity' that started the process of Chaotic Inflation or not.  For all observers, Inflation is a product of their particular 'singularity'.  According to Linde, there have been more of these apparent 'singularities' created than the human mind can comprehend. 

 

So, which singularity were you refering to - the one that initiated the process of Chaotic Inflation or the one we observe at the apparent creation point of our universe?

 

The singularity is not a product of inflation.

 

Please choose your words more carefully Clay.

 

What you actually meant to write was that, the initial singularity (the one that actually began the process of chaotic Inflation) would not have been a product of inflation.  That would be a correct statement.  But, as I've pointed out several times now, it's impossible for any observer to categorically state that the 'singularity' they observe is the initial one.  Nor can they even say where, in the accelerating and endless process of universe inflation, their particular universe sits.

 

Therefore, the only coherent statement any observer can make is that their 'singularity' might or might not have been the product of inflation.  Unless you are talking about the initial singularity, this is the only safe conclusion to draw.

The idea that the singularity had a location is meaningless as space was created with the singularity.

 

Incorrect.

 

http://mukto-mona.net/science/physics/Inflation_lself_prod_inde.pdf

SELF-REPRODUCING COSMOS appears as an extended

branching of inflationary bubbles. Changes in color represent

“mutations” in the laws of physics from parent

universes. The properties of space in each bubble do

not depend on the time when the bubble formed. In

this sense, the universe as a whole may be stationary,

even though the interior of each bubble can be described

by the big bang theory.

 

Each singularity causes it's own 'bubble' universe to inflate, creating space within each bubble.  The singularity inferred to exist at the creation point of our bubble universe is described by Big Bang Inflationary theory.  Every singularity within the multiverse is described by Chaotic Inflationary theory.

 

Past eternal models have simply been proposed they have not replaced the hard mathematics of Guth, Borde and Vilenkin's.

Linde's model (past eternal or not) has replaced Guth, Borde & Vilenkin's.  The deciding factor was not the math, but the Planck data, which is best matched by Linde's model.

The multiverse is actually just a theory. There is no hard science that supports it yet. The singularity is supported by mathematics and hard science.

  

Science argues to best explanation... isn't that what you say, Clay? Science's best explanation is that which best fits the data - making Linde's model the best explanation.  Or are you now saying that the best explanation is the math and hard science behind a theory that is not supported by the data?

  

Btw, what is this hard science you mention?  Please be specific.

 

BAA 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

So, which singularity were you refering to - the one that initiated the process of Chaotic Inflation or the one we observe at the apparent creation point of our universe?

 

2.

Science argues to best explanation... isn't that what you say, Clay?

 

3.

Science's best explanation is that which best fits the data - making Linde's model the best explanation.  Or are you now saying that the best explanation is the math and hard science behind a theory that is not supported by the data?

 

4.

Btw, what is this hard science [re: the singularity] you mention?  Please be specific.

The singularity created all of space and time. Linde is proposing a past eternal model when he proposes the chaotic model. The new Planck data does not contradict Borde, Guth and Vilenkin in the paper below.

 

You claim this paper ...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf

 

Nullifies this paper from Borde, Guth and Vilenkin

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

 

It does not. I certainly don't see it. The Borde, Guth Vilenkin  paper does not even show up in the citations.  If someone told you this on another site please point me to the source so I can read their words, or else show me where in the paper you think it contradicts Guth. It seems you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

 

[bornagainathiest]

The singularity created all of space and time. Linde is proposing a past eternal model when he proposes the chaotic model. The new Planck data does not contradict Borde, Guth and Vilenkin in the paper below.

 

You claim this paper ...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5082v1.pdf

 

Nullifies this paper from Borde, Guth and Vilenkin

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf

 

It does not. I certainly don't see it. The Borde, Guth Vilenkin  paper does not even show up in the citations.  If someone told you this on another site please point me to the source so I can read their words, or else show me where in the paper you think it contradicts Guth. It seems you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

 

 

 

Answers to my four questions first Clay, before we deal with anything else.

 

Which singularity?  Be specific.

[gall]

My favorite example of Enlightened Self-Interest is the public school system.

 

Many people who do not or will never have children complain about having to pay taxes for public education. But, at least here in the US, it is in their true best interest to do so because it is vital to have children learn to be not only productive, responsible members of society, but also rational voters.

 

yet my tax dollars are squandered and most of that money never gets spent to actually educate kids. Schools in my state close left and right and the ones that are graduating seem dumber than ever.

 

Standards have gone down entitlement has gone up.

 

I want to help pay for schools...schools that actually teach.

[RogueScholar]

Clay: I'm not sure I have much to offer, but I see the term singularity is being used. Unfortunately, you cannot really say a singularity created anything. A singularity typically occurs when models break down. In other words, a singularity is in some sense a way of saying "we don't know." So, if you are going to argue that a singularity created everything, you are in essence saying "I don't know, our current understanding breaks down in this situation." This is in fact true in extreme situations like black holes and the beginning of the universe. We have some ideas and plausible hypotheses, but the intellectually honest answer at this time is "I don't know." A singularity is a round about way of saying just that. In this sense I agree with you, we don't know, and there are no good reasons to shoehorn God hypotheses in when "I don't know" is the simplest and most honest answer.

[bornagainathiest]

Clay: I'm not sure I have much to offer, but I see the term singularity is being used. Unfortunately, you cannot really say a singularity created anything. A singularity typically occurs when models break down. In other words, a singularity is in some sense a way of saying "we don't know." So, if you are going to argue that a singularity created everything, you are in essence saying "I don't know, our current understanding breaks down in this situation." This is in fact true in extreme situations like black holes and the beginning of the universe. We have some ideas and plausible hypotheses, but the intellectually honest answer at this time is "I don't know." A singularity is a round about way of saying just that. In this sense I agree with you, we don't know, and there are no good reasons to shoehorn God hypotheses in when "I don't know" is the simplest and most honest answer.

 

RS,

 

A breakdown in our understand of reality is EXACTLY what Clay means.

In his worldview, that simple and honest answer cannot suffice and MUST yield to the demands of his faith. 

Therefore he DOES shoehorn God into the available gap. 

That's just OrdinaryClay for you.

 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[OrdinaryClay]

Clay: I'm not sure I have much to offer, but I see the term singularity is being used. Unfortunately, you cannot really say a singularity created anything. A singularity typically occurs when models break down. In other words, a singularity is in some sense a way of saying "we don't know." So, if you are going to argue that a singularity created everything, you are in essence saying "I don't know, our current understanding breaks down in this situation." This is in fact true in extreme situations like black holes and the beginning of the universe. We have some ideas and plausible hypotheses, but the intellectually honest answer at this time is "I don't know." A singularity is a round about way of saying just that. In this sense I agree with you, we don't know, and there are no good reasons to shoehorn God hypotheses in when "I don't know" is the simplest and most honest answer.

What science says is that the universe was at one point a singularity. We do know this within the limits of our science. A singularity is a state of the system described with mathematics. No one is saying the singularity created anything.

 

The question then becomes how did the singularity arise. Science does not know, which is a reasonable position for science to have. There are limits to what science can know. Some people may then just let that question hang with no thought beyond that. That does not mean the question is not worth asking and profound. It is a deeply meaningful question to ask, "How did the singularity arise?"

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

Clay: I'm not sure I have much to offer, but I see the term singularity is being used. Unfortunately, you cannot really say a singularity created anything. A singularity typically occurs when models break down. In other words, a singularity is in some sense a way of saying "we don't know." So, if you are going to argue that a singularity created everything, you are in essence saying "I don't know, our current understanding breaks down in this situation." This is in fact true in extreme situations like black holes and the beginning of the universe. We have some ideas and plausible hypotheses, but the intellectually honest answer at this time is "I don't know." A singularity is a round about way of saying just that. In this sense I agree with you, we don't know, and there are no good reasons to shoehorn God hypotheses in when "I don't know" is the simplest and most honest answer.

What science says is that the universe was at one point a singularity. We do know this within the limits of our science. A singularity is a state of the system described with mathematics. No one is saying the singularity created anything.

 

The question then becomes how did the singularity arise. Science does not know, which is a reasonable position for science to have. There are limits to what science can know. Some people may then just let that question hang with no thought beyond that. That does not mean the question is not worth asking and profound. It is a deeply meaningful question to ask, "How did the singularity arise?"

 

 

 

No, I'm not one of those people who are prepared to let the question hang, Clay.

 

But first, a point of order.

Cosmological science infers that a singularity existed billions of years ago - it does not simply 'say' that this is so.  You are the one who is on record as saying that science argues to the best explanation.  Therefore, you should toe your own line and treat this singularity, not as an something that science says existed, but as something science infers to have existed.  A BIG difference!  

 

So, are we clear on that, Clay?

The singularity is inferred to exist from the data.  It is an inferred argument to the best explanation.  Yes?

Blithely stating that science says that the universe was at one point a singularity just isn't doing justice to your own standards, is it?

Ok, I suppose you could claim that you were implying this about the singularity but had simply omitted this important detail for the sake of brevity.  If that's so... fine.  However, it would be polite and courteous of you to acknowledge that I've corrected this oversight on your part..

.

.

 

 

Now, as you can see from the words and phrases I've highlighted in your response to the RogueScholar, science is the tool that gives us inferred knowledge about the singularity.  Metaphysics, theology and philosophy cannot and do not do this.  They must begin with and work from what science gives them. These other disciplines do not supplant or oust the body of knowledge science gives us - they must and should work hand in glove with it.  But, science's limitations are not an automatic signal to just ditch it in favor of the supernatural.  We should always endeavour to use the naturalistic governing principles of science FIRST ...before venturing into the realm of the supernatural.

 

Why?

Because this is simply the safest ground.  If we are going to go debate the origin of the singularity, then the sensible, rational and logical choice is for us not to abandon science but to stick with it until there is good cause to leave it behind.  That is when we come to the point when we may choose to adopt the supernatural.   Since you, as the Christian, are (or will be) advocating a supernatural answer to the deeply meaningful question, "How did the singularity arise?" the onus is squarely upon you to convincingly demonstrate why science-based speculation must yield to supernatural speculation on this issue. 

 

Why are scientific theories about the origin of the singularity that is inferred to have existed, unfit for the purpose?

Please demonstrate good cause for the need to invoke the supernatural on this matter.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest OldSeer]

Evil is that which is harmful and/or hardship. If the wind blows one's house down the wind did an evil on you. The wind being, non-intelligent, does what it does within the the nature of universal construction/law of material forces. But, a person was harmed so an evil/loss was done. And, an intelligent one can do a harm upon another person intentionally or unintentionally. Evil exists within the universe and is a consequence of it. One can do good which in turn can also bring about a harm. One can also do a harm which will bring about a good/gain, even though unintended. As the saying is---no good deed goes unpunished. Every force has consequences,and the opposite of good is evil. One cannot be without the other, the same as "hot" cannot be without cold, up cannot be without down in-so-far as we reference things. One who willfully does harm upon another is an "evil person", as normally is understood. A disease is an evil. Suffering is an evil. Food is a good while if it make one sick then it is an evil. Would the food that makes one sick an evil-no, because sick is a consequence of the food being incompatible. No material thing can be exactly good or evil as it is the consequence that is the evil. There are also evil social values as well as there are good social values. The good and evil social values are the main problems in the world.

[skepticalme]

 

Clay: I'm not sure I have much to offer, but I see the term singularity is being used. Unfortunately, you cannot really say a singularity created anything. A singularity typically occurs when models break down. In other words, a singularity is in some sense a way of saying "we don't know." So, if you are going to argue that a singularity created everything, you are in essence saying "I don't know, our current understanding breaks down in this situation." This is in fact true in extreme situations like black holes and the beginning of the universe. We have some ideas and plausible hypotheses, but the intellectually honest answer at this time is "I don't know." A singularity is a round about way of saying just that. In this sense I agree with you, we don't know, and there are no good reasons to shoehorn God hypotheses in when "I don't know" is the simplest and most honest answer.

What science says is that the universe was at one point a singularity. We do know this within the limits of our science. A singularity is a state of the system described with mathematics. No one is saying the singularity created anything.

 

The question then becomes how did the singularity arise. Science does not know, which is a reasonable position for science to have. There are limits to what science can know. Some people may then just let that question hang with no thought beyond that. That does not mean the question is not worth asking and profound. It is a deeply meaningful question to ask, "How did the singularity arise?"

 

 

It is endlessly iroinic and amusing when creationist present themselves as the ones who are inquiring.  What questions has religion answered? None.  In fact, the only period in human history when knowledge went backwards is the dark ages when religion reigned.  Their may be limits to what science knows now, but the entire history of science is that those limits have been pushed away exponentially.  The reason you know their was a singularity and not a guy with a fig leaf over his crotch talking to snakes and eating magic fruit, is because of science. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Funny.  I point out, though, that as I have understood him over a couple years now, OrdinaryClay is not a creationist in the strict sense.  I think he holds to a form of evolution, though I'm not sure whether it's macro- or only micro-evolution.  

 

OC, do I get your thought correctly on this?  

 

On other scientific topics, OC has spoken about the singularity that was the postulated Big Bang, and I think he holds to generally accepted dates of the universe and of the earth.

 

William Lane Craig holds to a form of evolution as well:

 

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/why-is-evolution-so-widely-believed

 

When I was a Christian, I used to like to think, with Augustine, that God created everything in a moment of time.  Sadly, I don't know where Augustine said that;  I rely on what my medieval philosophy prof told us.

[Ravenstar]

"There are limits to what science can know. Some people may then just let that question hang with no thought beyond that. That does not mean the question is not worth asking and profound. It is a deeply meaningful question to ask, "How did the singularity arise?" "

 

This sounds reasonable on the surface but belies the actual position of cosmologists. Before Planck time there is no way (at the moment) to KNOW what was there before the expansion of our universe, and no credible scientists claims such. As B.A.A. stated there is an inference, but that inference and the lack of knowledge is the impetus that drives scientific inquiry, it doesn't shut it down. I submit that many cosmologists and astrophysicists are most likely deeply involved in asking this question.

 

Here is where it gets tricky, in our history the human urge to have answers (to feel secure, basically - because the unknown can be dangerous in a survival sort of way) has created a cultural matrix where philosophers and theologians attempt to fill those gaps in our knowledge. Sometimes using logic, sometimes imagination, sometimes both and frequently applying 'common sense' to problems that can not be approached that way. This is definitely the case with our cosmological origins, it's a very complicated problem and without a grasp of quantum mechanics is beyond the ability of most people to even speculate on.

 

Personally I am comfortable with letting science handle the 'how', and philosophy handle the 'why', (with the caveat that with the subjective nature of these things I will decide for myself if their ideas have merit). The question of evil is not one for hard science, it is one for the social sciences, philosophy and theology, and these disciplines are, by their nature, fraught with human error and bias.

 

Of course we must come to concensus on the definition of evil before any meaningful dialogue can even occur. I don't think we are anywhere close to that considering that 'evil' seems to be a highly subjective, nay individual, concept.