Attn B.a.a - Beginning Of The Universe Question

[LogicalFallacy]

 

20 hours ago, disillusioned said:

The problem I see is this: Krauss is arguing that modern cosmology has led us to the point where we are forced to recognize that we occupy a very special, very privileged place in spacetime. For the vast majority of the life of our universe, the observations that we can now make will be impossible. Scientists in the far future will be literally unable to access any evidence of the expansion of the universe, or of dark matter and energy, or of the CMB, etcetera, etcetera. Similarly, scientists from the past may have had access to other observational evidence which is now out of our reach.

 

Can we apply the anthropic principle and suggest that its only because we are looking at the current space/time that it appears special? Is this not like water looking at a hole in the ground and concluding its made just for the water at just the right time?

 

Were we able to be only 1-2 billions years from the Big Bang then we'd be saying the same thing.

 

In billions of years, should intelligent life still exist on some planet they might conclude that their system is the only 'special' system because the expansion has made it impossible to see the other star systems.

 

15 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

But, I think that if we focus on the philosophical problem of Genesis 1:1 and it's "creation ex nihilo," it's much firmer than basing it all on a particular cosmological model subject to change over time. And the inflationary model could be used as an aside, I would think, without loosing anything in the event of it changing. Because the philosophical angle I tend to think is unshakable. 

 

I've been putting it to apologists for well over a decade now and none of them seem to be able to over come it - my replacing their eternal, self-existent god with a necessarily eternal, and self-existent natural realm of existence with no beginning or end. That alone makes nonsense out of Genesis 1:1 in my view. 

 

This is a good point and where parsimony comes in. If the theist is to posit that a complex transcendent being has existed externally, which introduces questions about how such a being could arise, then philosophically it is more logical to posit an as yet unknown eternal universe. Scientifically we don't have solid grounding for exactly how that would be, but philosophically its better.

 

God does not solve the beginning problem - it merely shifts it out to "god". Theists fail to grasp this.

 

 

By the way I'm really enjoying reading the both of you going back and forth.

 

 

[disillusioned]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Hahaha...

 

I like Krauss, he's funny guy. I remember that lecture. But what I remembered was Dawkin's calling Krauss the "Woody Allen of Physics..." 

 

Now I'm sure Mark took issue with the notion of our occupying a privileged place in space time, due to the notion conflicting in some way with the Copernican Principle. Unless of course this represents an exception to the CP.

 

Yes, he’s a very clever man. “The Woody Allen of Physics” is apt.

Mark didn’t actually take exception to this notion. When I posed this question to him, his response basically amounted to “well, what other choice do we have?” He was happy enough to admit that this probably means that there is something wrong with the theory. We agreed, essentially, that this is not really that strange of a notion. All scientific theories are incomplete. If you push them far enough, they all break down. And this doesn’t mean that they are useless, or that they should be discarded outright. Something can be wrong with a particular scientific theory, and it can still be the best theory available. So we carry on, until something better comes along.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 Listening further, I see that Krauss addressed a Q&A question about inference, basically. How just as scientists knew atoms should exist way before they were observed because of the science showing that they should be there, so too does that general trend apply to a multiverse in the same way. Just as Mark argued on the basis of inference. That sort of supports the direction I was going in previously about how science can conceive of ways in which to confirm the existence of other universes, even if they are never observed directly or can never be observed directly. This is the optimism that I saw in Mark. 

 

Yes, you are right, we can infer many things on the basis of inflationary theory. Kaku talks about this in his video too, in particular mentioning dark matter as being possible evidence of other universes. My issue is this though: if there is a foundational flaw in the logic underlying modern cosmology, then I’m not sure that we can trust inferences that are based on it. This is what I mean when I say that I trust it when it works--when it produces testable results. Yes, we can take the step that Kaku wants us to take and infer that dark matter is evidence of other universes. But we can’t actually show that it is. What dark matter actually is is an open question, as is whether or not other universes exist. I don't think we should pretend otherwise.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Duderonomy may have been well advised to introduce the above into the limited knowledge thread. It would have been a quite clever angle to introduce. 

 

And that's why I saw it from both of their sides in different contexts. In the end, science is what it is, and can be problematic, but that in no way bolsters religion or puts it on an even playing field. We went around and around about this. I'm comfortable allowing for the above. It makes clear sense and it's very logical minded given the circumstances. I think that's why so many people here were a little resistant to Mark's piss and vinegar about inflationary theory and it's implications as a way of arguing against apologists. 

 

You really hit the nail on the head here, disillusioned. 

 

Thanks for this.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

This I'm not sure I follow, though. What is not testable? The part that I was referring to was where he was talking about gravitation readings inferring the existence of parallel universes. Much the same as Krauss was talking about ways of deducing these things through inference in his Q&A session. And Mark and I were discussing PIXIE and other methods for confirming these very things. Being that we live in the time that we live in, the space time that we live in and all, it seems that we're right on the heels of seeing some potentially heavy discoveries in the not so distance future. Simply because scientists are conceiving of ways in which to confirm things like parallel universes at this time and going forward. 

 

I suppose I see it no differently than the search for planets orbiting stars, and then earth-like planets. At one point it didn't seem very possible. Then as time went on aggressive efforts underway made for pretty rapidly evolving methodologies for seeking out and finding evidence of what previously didn't seem very possible. Simply put, I don't think the issue of parallel universes and such goes beyond the realm of what can be known. It's not as deep an issue as something like the mystery of why anything exists in the first place. I don't see it as forever out of reach when scientists are currently conceiving of ways of making confirmations. It seems more likely to me that what can be conceived of, can be known given the right circumstances. 

 

Some of this I addressed above, but I want to try and clarify my perspective a bit further.

 

I’m not saying that scientists can’t pursue these questions (like the question of the existence of parallel universes, for example), or that the answers to these questions are forever out of reach. Where I think we need to be careful is that we do not conflate confirmed scientific facts with predictions, inferences, and opinions. This is important to me for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that I’m a science teacher. Unfortunately, I’m reminded every day that the general public knows very little about science. Another thing that I've found is that there are many people who react to something being presented to them as science by embracing it wholesale as Truth with a capital "T". And of course, there are also quite a few people in our society who have a strong distrust of science, and react in the opposite way. A large part of my job is persuading people from the latter group that science really does have some authority, and that we can trust it because it works, while also persuading people from the first group that it doesn't have all the answers, and that it is usually wrong a lot before it is right. This is also relevant to my personal life, as most of my family and many of my friends are young-earth creationists. Consequently, I often find myself in the position of having to defend scientific claims to people who are not inclined to trust them. I have found that this task is much easier if I freely acknowledge that science does not provide answers to all questions, and that there are many questions which are currently open. After all, those who distrust science and those who, from a position of ignorance, grant it too much credence, often wind up in figurative or literal shouting matches over who is right, with neither group really understanding what they are talking about. So it is literally my job to try to help people from both of these groups to form better understandings of what science is, how it works, and what it does.

 

By way of illustration of what I mean when I say that we should be careful what we call science, I want to look at a could of statements that I might make. If I were to say “the scientific view is that humanity is an evolved, not a specially created species” I would be making a statement about what the scientific facts are. The evidence for this claim can be presented and examined. It holds up under scrutiny. It has been tested, and found to be correct. But if I say “the scientific view is that there are many other universes”, then I would be making a statement about a scientific hypothesis, and a currently un-testable one at that. We can't show that there are other universes. All we can do is make an inference that they exist. This might be a good hypothesis, and it might one day become testable. But right now, it has not been tested. It cannot be called a verified scientific fact. Mark and I were in agreement about this as well. A major problem that I see, though, is that much of the general public doesn’t really understand that there is a categorical difference between the two statements above. The one is coming from a position of earned authority, while the other seems to be claiming the same position, but has not yet earned it. So the onus is on those of us who are talking about these things to clearly distinguish between the two kinds of claims.

I don’t mean to suggest that scientists should not think about these things. They should! And of course, scientists are free to have their own opinions, and to express their own opinions. They just need to be clear about when they are speaking from a position of authority as scientists, and when they are speaking speculatively. I also agree that the limits of what we can know now are not fixed for all time. As science continues to develop, its reach continues to increase. We've come really far in the last couple thousand years. I'm hope very much that we continue to go forward. But if we are to do so, we need to be careful that we don't fall into the trap of thinking that we have already arrived. And I think that one of the ways that people fall into this trap is by conflating hypotheses and facts.

 

With respect to what exactly is not testable in Kaku's video, I was referring specifically to the existence of dark matter (which has never been observed, only inferred), the existence of white holes (there is one candidate for a potential white hole, but the evidence is not conclusive), and the existence of parallel universes.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

It's philosophical. I don't know if it goes too far to call it philosophy of science? Perhaps philosophy about science? 

 

Our main point here is arguing with christian's. So I see both fronts, science and philosophy, as helpful in doing so. For a variety of reasons, in a variety of ways. 

 

These make sense, theirs don't any sense at all. 

 

Philosophy of science is fine with me. Even to call it a hypothesis or an inference would be fine with me. With the final point here, I have no argument at all.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Thank you for saying. 

 

I guess the reason that I'll be pouring over Mark's citations in his final argument is to determine whether or not I think his citations do what he seemed to believe that they do. Your last post really illustrates some very over arching points that seem to consume the Genesis 1:1 argument from all sides. Mainly due to the uncertainty of science. The problematic issue of any given cosmological model not having it correct, at least entirely correct, weighs in heavy in this discussion for sure. I generally bow down to the issue of uncertainty more often than not, uncertainty is the final destination of many a truth seeking path. 

 

And if that's the case, then perhaps you are completely right when it comes to the Genesis 1:1 argument. 

 

But, I think that if we focus on the philosophical problem of Genesis 1:1 and it's "creation ex nihilo," it's much firmer than basing it all on a particular cosmological model subject to change over time. And the inflationary model could be used as an aside, I would think, without loosing anything in the event of it changing. Because the philosophical angle I tend to think is unshakable. 

 

I've been putting it to apologists for well over a decade now and none of them seem to be able to over come it - my replacing their eternal, self-existent god with a necessarily eternal, and self-existent natural realm of existence with no beginning or end. That alone makes nonsense out of Genesis 1:1 in my view. 

 

I agree with this.

[disillusioned]

2 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Can we apply the anthropic principle and suggest that its only because we are looking at the current space/time that it appears special? Is this not like water looking at a hole in the ground and concluding its made just for the water at just the right time?

 

Were we able to be only 1-2 billions years from the Big Bang then we'd be saying the same thing.

 

In billions of years, should intelligent life still exist on some planet they might conclude that their system is the only 'special' system because the expansion has made it impossible to see the other star systems.

 

 

Hmm, that's an interesting thought. You may be onto something there.

 

We are here, and now. All we can do is observe here and now. From our observations, we build models of how we think the universe is. We use these models to make predictions. Some of these predictions are testable. When the predictions are borne out, the models that produced them are strengthened; when they aren't, the models are modified or replaced. This is the scientific process.

 

Part of what I think that the conclusion of Krauss' video (unwittingly?) shows is that this process is not perfect. Our models have to be compatible with what we observe, and what we can observe is determined by our location in spacetime. But our location in spacetime restricts us from observing the whole story, which means that we may be forming incorrect models. This is true of all locations to some extent. What we get is a snapshot, from which we try to make a movie. And each snapshot is, at least in some sense, unique, by virtue of the fact that it was taken from a specific location.

 

Does that make sense? Is that what you were getting at?

[LogicalFallacy]

9 minutes ago, disillusioned said:

 

Hmm, that's an interesting thought. You may be onto something there.

 

We are here, and now. All we can do is observe here and now. From our observations, we build models of how we think the universe is. We use these models to make predictions. Some of these predictions are testable. When the predictions are borne out, the models that produced them are strengthened; when they aren't, the models are modified or replaced. This is the scientific process.

 

Part of what I think that the conclusion of Krauss' video (unwittingly?) shows is that this process is not perfect. Our models have to be compatible with what we observe, and what we can observe is determined by our location in spacetime. But our location in spacetime restricts us from observing the whole story, which means that we may be forming incorrect models. This is true of all locations to some extent. What we get is a snapshot, from which we try to make a movie. And each snapshot is, at least in some sense, unique, by virtue of the fact that it was taken from a specific location.

 

Does that make sense? Is that what you were getting at?

 

Yes, or at least that our models are not so much incorrect, but incomplete. They should, if the scientific method is followed properly, be correct for what we observe.

 

However we cannot observe back further than 13 billion odd years, and we also cannot observe beyond our 40 billion odd light year radius. Physics doesn't allow it. The only way to "see" further is to get in a spaceship and warpjump to the edge and see what's beyond it. But that's fiction so we are limited to what we can deduce and infer models that best fits available data as Josh was saying.

 

I'm not sure where this leaves infinite replication. However BAA was of the mind that despite the fact we cannot observe or test it, that based on what we know about inflation we can reasonably infer it. This will remain so as long as observations and tests for inflation hold true to the model.

[Joshpantera]

4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

This is important to me for a number of reasons. One of these reasons is that I’m a science teacher.

 

I guess I quoted wrong, below is actually what I said: 

 

4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

But, I think that if we focus on the philosophical problem of Genesis 1:1 and it's "creation ex nihilo," it's much firmer than basing it all on a particular cosmological model subject to change over time. And the inflationary model could be used as an aside, I would think, without loosing anything in the event of it changing. Because the philosophical angle I tend to think is unshakable. 

 

I've been putting it to apologists for well over a decade now and none of them seem to be able to over come it - my replacing their eternal, self-existent god with a necessarily eternal, and self-existent natural realm of existence with no beginning or end. That alone makes nonsense out of Genesis 1:1 in my view. 

 

4 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I agree with this.

 

I didn't realize that you teach science, I must have missed that in the past. And I find value in the fact that you agree with my above summary. Again, thank you for saying. 

 

4 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I'm not sure where this leaves infinite replication. However BAA was of the mind that despite the fact we cannot observe or test it, that based on what we know about inflation we can reasonably infer it. This will remain so as long as observations and tests for inflation hold true to the model.

 

As long as we use something like inflation and the IRP (Infinite Replication Paradox) responsibly, sticking to correct expression and claim making, I think we all three seem to agree that it's not a problem to continue using it. 

 

Apologist: "Even science proves the bible! The pagan myths claimed a static universe. But only the bible, and the bible alone has the insight of modern science about the universe having fixed beginning. Science has confirmed the truth of the bible..."

 

Us: "Science doesn't actually reveal any fixed beginning, and in fact, it shows us no further than outlining an indefinite past via a variety of ways of looking at the issue. A truly fixed beginning, or "creation ex nihilo" such as portrayed in Genesis 1:1 is neither proven nor supported by science as a matter of fact. In actuality, the leading cosmological theory of today runs in the direction of a potentially infinite and eternal natural cosmos as the simplest explanation for what may surround our specific sphere of observation, looking outward from the Earth. And, in fact, various specialists are currently working on ways in which to try and confirm our place in the greater scheme of the cosmos, via inference and others means which can be used to try and glean this sort of information. Unfortunately this altogether runs very contrary to the claims being made by the said apologist...

 

 

[disillusioned]

21 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Yes, or at least that our models are not so much incorrect, but incomplete. They should, if the scientific method is followed properly, be correct for what we observe.

 

However we cannot observe back further than 13 billion odd years, and we also cannot observe beyond our 40 billion odd light year radius. Physics doesn't allow it. The only way to "see" further is to get in a spaceship and warpjump to the edge and see what's beyond it. But that's fiction so we are limited to what we can deduce and infer models that best fits available data as Josh was saying.

 

I'm not sure where this leaves infinite replication. However BAA was of the mind that despite the fact we cannot observe or test it, that based on what we know about inflation we can reasonably infer it. This will remain so as long as observations and tests for inflation hold true to the model.

 

I think this is basically correct. Also, even though I don't think infinite replication is necessary to defeat Gen 1:1, it is a nice bonus.

 

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

As long as we use something like inflation and the IRP (Infinite Replication Paradox) responsibly, sticking to correct expression and claim making, I think we all three seem to agree that it's not a problem to continue using it. 

 

Apologist: "Even science proves the bible! The pagan myths claimed a static universe. But only the bible, and the bible alone has the insight of modern science about the universe having fixed beginning. Science has confirmed the truth of the bible..."

 

Us: "Science doesn't actually reveal any fixed beginning, and in fact, it shows us no further than outlining an indefinite past via a variety of ways of looking at the issue. A truly fixed beginning, or "creation ex nihilo" such as portrayed in Genesis 1:1 is neither proven nor supported by science as a matter of fact. In actuality, the leading cosmological theory of today runs in the direction of a potentially infinite and eternal natural cosmos as the simplest explanation for what may surround our specific sphere of observation, looking outward from the Earth. And, in fact, various specialists are currently working on ways in which to try and confirm our place in the greater scheme of the cosmos, via inference and others means which can be used to try and glean this sort of information. Unfortunately this altogether runs very contrary to the claims being made by the said apologist...

 

 

This is right on the money.

[LogicalFallacy]

21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I didn't realize that you teach science, I must have missed that in the past. And I find value in the fact that you agree with my above summary. Again, thank you for saying. 

 

I was picking that disillusioned was either involved with science directly or an avid amateur study of it like BAA based on the knowledge and content shown in his posts.

 

21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

As long as we use something like inflation and the IRP (Infinite Replication Paradox) responsibly, sticking to correct expression and claim making, I think we all three seem to agree that it's not a problem to continue using it. 

 

Apologist: "Even science proves the bible! The pagan myths claimed a static universe. But only the bible, and the bible alone has the insight of modern science about the universe having fixed beginning. Science has confirmed the truth of the bible..."

 

Us: "Science doesn't actually reveal any fixed beginning, and in fact, it shows us no further than outlining an indefinite past via a variety of ways of looking at the issue. A truly fixed beginning, or "creation ex nihilo" such as portrayed in Genesis 1:1 is neither proven nor supported by science as a matter of fact. In actuality, the leading cosmological theory of today runs in the direction of a potentially infinite and eternal natural cosmos as the simplest explanation for what may surround our specific sphere of observation, looking outward from the Earth. And, in fact, various specialists are currently working on ways in which to try and confirm our place in the greater scheme of the cosmos, via inference and others means which can be used to try and glean this sort of information. Unfortunately this altogether runs very contrary to the claims being made by the said apologist...

 

This is great. Our very first draft combining Mark's four factors into a comprehensive argument against Genesis 1:1 and a fixed beginning requiring God.

 

3 hours ago, disillusioned said:

I think this is basically correct. Also, even though I don't think infinite replication is necessary to defeat Gen 1:1, it is a nice bonus.

 

As part of the argument we would have to be prepared for the question of how do we know infinite replication is a fact?

 

We would have to respond that currently its impossible to determine as fact, but we can reasonably infer it by current theories and observations supporting those theories. At this point I think Mark's last argument may come into play and thus tie in. (So glad he rebooted that thread)

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

As part of the argument we would have to be prepared for the question of how do we know infinite replication is a fact?

 

We would have to respond that currently its impossible to determine as fact, but we can reasonably infer it by current theories and observations supporting those theories. At this point I think Mark's last argument may come into play and thus tie in. (So glad he rebooted that thread)

 

I'm employing the philosophical angle of correct terminology and expression first and foremost. In my passing example there is nothing in which an apologist can take and use to ask us how we know infinite replication is a fact. I didn't even name IRP in the example, I only alluded to it. Perhaps it should be treated as further down the line in the argument. I outlined where the argument can lead if it is to continue further. 

 

If they came back and started pointing to a singularity behind the opening statement, as if that counters my opening statement, then I would begin to launch Mark's last argument and go into the details behind my opening statement and how those details counter the singularity issue in various ways. That was the point of it, Mark wanted specificly to dismantle WLC's apologetic's. I'm trying to keep to the discipline of correct and responsible word and concept usage. I completely agree with disillusioned academic, teacher based view of how science should be used and applied in social settings. If we get too caught up or attached to these issues like parallel universes, black and white hole transfer and exchange, or any other deeply hypothetical issues then we can be made to look like our arguments are based on shaky foundations. 

 

Now granted, all apologist's by default base their entire world views on essentially shaky foundations, the bible to be specific, but this is how they tend to play the game - by trying to pull their opponents down to their own shaky foundation levels. But they do so in such a way as to ignore the fact that they are merely trying to pull us down to their own level, even though it's very transparent that that's what they are actually doing. An example would be trying to claim that we're only talking about theories, when their own view is based on something far more shaky, faith and faith alone. So they're essentially trying to pull us down to their level in that way. That's why I immediately call them out on it from the outset when they begin trying to take that route. They have to have their noses rubbed in it immediately so that it's fresh on their minds as it happens and it's not something they can easily squirm out of. They believe in straight fairy tales as absolute truth, so who are they to call out someone for talking about or referring to a "theory?"

 

So first of all, we can establish how shaky and sand foundation based their own world view is from the outset when this begins to play out, before even addressing the uncertainties associated with science. And we can do that a variety of ways which we've discussed already concerning Genesis 1:1 And leading into Genesis 1:2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.......

 

I like to point out the problems by way of the philosophical issues first (the problem of fixed beginnings, natural eternal existence being much simpler than supernatural eternal beings, etc.), and then get right into the problems of scriptural contradiction. I feel like I would prefer to introduce Mark's final argument thirdly, recapping again from Genesis 1:1 forward after already having established the philosophical problems and the blatant contractions which apply to both literalistic and symbolic interpretations alike. By the time the scientific issues are introduced they don't necessarily make or brake the argument itself, it's just more supporting evidence in the form on inference and whatever it can be honestly and responsibly used to do. I think we should be careful to remain as intellectually honest as possible when addressing creationist's or whoever it may be. 

 

Mark may well have disagreed with me placing his argument thirdly, but that may be the best and strongest position for it considering what the three of us have been discussing over the last week. And following the logic of disillusioned's academic advise. No matter how dominant, a leading theory is always necessarily limited in ways the philosophical angles may not be. 

 

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, disillusioned said:

On 1/23/2018 at 11:38 PM, Joshpantera said:

As long as we use something like inflation and the IRP (Infinite Replication Paradox) responsibly, sticking to correct expression and claim making, I think we all three seem to agree that it's not a problem to continue using it. 

 

Apologist: "Even science proves the bible! The pagan myths claimed a static universe. But only the bible, and the bible alone has the insight of modern science about the universe having fixed beginning. Science has confirmed the truth of the bible..."

 

Us: "Science doesn't actually reveal any fixed beginning, and in fact, it shows us no further than outlining an indefinite past via a variety of ways of looking at the issue. A truly fixed beginning, or "creation ex nihilo" such as portrayed in Genesis 1:1 is neither proven nor supported by science as a matter of fact. In actuality, the leading cosmological theory of today runs in the direction of a potentially infinite and eternal natural cosmos as the simplest explanation for what may surround our specific sphere of observation, looking outward from the Earth. And, in fact, various specialists are currently working on ways in which to try and confirm our place in the greater scheme of the cosmos, via inference and others means which can be used to try and glean this sort of information. Unfortunately this altogether runs very contrary to the claims being made by the said apologist...

 

 

This is right on the money.

 

I just had another idea about a direction to take.

 

Us: furthermore, what we do know about the BBT and an expanding universe, is that eventually the universe will 'appear' to be static just as the old pagan myths had portrayed it. What then will that say about the "creation ex nihilo" of Genesis 1:1?

 

Wouldn't a future time and place make the old pagan myths 'appear' more advanced to the bible for possible future generations, due to their image of a static universe in the distant future? So what then is the value of trying to attach your religion to an ever changing scientific landscape in the first place? Once the science changes, the religious claims attached to the previously held views of the science fall flat along side of it. 

 

But in this case, trying to attach the religion to our current scientific standard model of the universe can't even get off the ground in the first place, even now, so there's no good outcome to be found for a religious proponent either which way you turn. The best outcome, obviously, is to simply not even get into science when trying to discuss one's personal religion and / or religious views. Religious views are faith based, plain and simple. Cross a certain line, pay a certain price...

[disillusioned]

18 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I just had another idea about a direction to take.

 

Us: furthermore, what we do know about the BBT and an expanding universe, is that eventually the universe will 'appear' to be static just as the old pagan myths had portrayed it. What then will that say about the "creation ex nihilo" of Genesis 1:1?

 

Wouldn't a future time and place make the old pagan myths 'appear' more advanced to the bible for possible future generations, due to their image of a static universe in the distant future? So what then is the value of trying to attach your religion to an ever changing scientific landscape in the first place? Once the science changes, the religious claims attached to the previously held views of the science fall flat along side of it. 

 

But in this case, trying to attach the religion to our current scientific standard model of the universe can't even get off the ground in the first place, even now, so there's no good outcome to be found for a religious proponent either which way you turn. The best outcome, obviously, is to simply not even get into science when trying to discuss one's personal religion and / or religious views. Religious views are faith based, plain and simple. Cross a certain line, pay a certain price...

 

This is good, and actually comes quite close to some lines of reasoning that I've taken when arguing with creationists. The bottom line is, theists are making faith claims. They can try to dress them up in pseudoscientific clothes if they want, but at the end of the day this does them much more harm than good with anyone who knows anything about actual science. I've known a few serious scientists who are Christians. They all have one thing in common: they keep their religion and science separate. The furthest they might go is to admit that they consider some things to be wonders of God's creation (the heavens declare the glory of God, and so on), but they would never say that science can actually show that the Bible is correct. They just know better. And the thing is, I don't have a problem with these people. They recognize that they have some faith, and I don't share it, and that's the end of that. But the fundamentalists like WLC who try to co-opt science for their own purposes are on an entirely different playing field. These people are not being intellectually honest. They insist the science is wrong until they can't anymore, and then they say "Isn't it wondrous that God designed it that way all along?". It's an unfalsifiable worldview. But that in itself makes it unscientific.

[disillusioned]

19 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

As part of the argument we would have to be prepared for the question of how do we know infinite replication is a fact?

 

We would have to respond that currently its impossible to determine as fact, but we can reasonably infer it by current theories and observations supporting those theories. At this point I think Mark's last argument may come into play and thus tie in. (So glad he rebooted that thread)

 

I agree with this.

[Joshpantera]

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I agree with this.

 

Even though you take issue with IRP? 

 

 

[disillusioned]

33 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Even though you take issue with IRP? 

 

 

 

Yes, I agree with what LF wrote, but cautiously.

 

I like the idea of infinite replication. I want to say that it is correct; I just can't quite get past the issue of nobody really knowing how to compute the probabilities involved, and the potential underlying logical problems. So I don't say it is correct, but I say it might be. I'm generally ok with presenting it in arguments such as these with theists, because if theists really want to go down this road then I think it will be more problematic for them then it will be for us. In my experience, theists are not, in general, that interested in the minutia which underlie the inferences of particular scientific theories. If they really want to get into the numbers and the underlying logic then we have lots of options on the table to show that that sword cuts both ways. The numbers and the logic are not, in my opinion, in their favour. So if it comes right down to it, I'm never going to argue with someone who wants to dive that deeply into the math or the underlying logic and dispute the veracity of infinite replication. I will happily cede to that person that it might not be true. But as long as we are clear from the start that this is a hypothesis, and not a verified fact, we have nothing really to lose by bringing it up. And if our compatriot is keen enough to see the issues with this hypothesis, then perhaps s/he might be keen enough to see some of the issues with his or her own perspective.

[Joshpantera]

On 1/25/2018 at 7:27 PM, disillusioned said:

 

Yes, I agree with what LF wrote, but cautiously.

 

I like the idea of infinite replication. I want to say that it is correct; I just can't quite get past the issue of nobody really knowing how to compute the probabilities involved, and the potential underlying logical problems. So I don't say it is correct, but I say it might be. I'm generally ok with presenting it in arguments such as these with theists, because if theists really want to go down this road then I think it will be more problematic for them then it will be for us. In my experience, theists are not, in general, that interested in the minutia which underlie the inferences of particular scientific theories. If they really want to get into the numbers and the underlying logic then we have lots of options on the table to show that that sword cuts both ways. The numbers and the logic are not, in my opinion, in their favour. So if it comes right down to it, I'm never going to argue with someone who wants to dive that deeply into the math or the underlying logic and dispute the veracity of infinite replication. I will happily cede to that person that it might not be true. But as long as we are clear from the start that this is a hypothesis, and not a verified fact, we have nothing really to lose by bringing it up. And if our compatriot is keen enough to see the issues with this hypothesis, then perhaps s/he might be keen enough to see some of the issues with his or her own perspective.

 

I see your point. And that's what I mean about making them first address the "plank" in their own eye, before trying to point out the splinter in someone else's. They rely on very baseless claims that don't make very much sense at all.

 

This is an aside to the discussion, but I'll let you guys know that I've linked this discussion in the spirituality section to use the basis of what we're discussing as a demonstration on how it can unravel towards the mystical and spiritual ideas of the east concerning the infinite, the eternal, beginning-less and endlessness, transcendent, and how those concepts relate to the natural cosmos and natural existence as a whole. There's some interesting things that can come from it, which share in the firmness of the philosophical angles we've been discussing. That's another area that christianity and apologist's take a big hit in all of this. They can't dominate and have dominion over the secular sciences, but neither can they dominate and have dominion over human spirituality either. And these points we've been making form up a sharp double edged sword cutting christianity and apologists right down the middle. In the end they're left bankrupt and exposed....

[Joshpantera]

Back to Mark's argument again, then: 

 

Quote

Thanks for your input and your patience, guys.  

Before I can move on to explain about the repetition of patterns I first need to explain how inflationary theory gives us an indefinitely long history of the universe and not one that begins 13.72 billion years ago.  When inflation was first formulated by Alan Guth and Andrei Linde in the early 80's, the following details were discovered about it.

 

1.  Once inflation begins, it never ends. 

2.  It inflates pocket universes that are at least a thousand times larger than the volume of our observable universe. 

3.  Once it begins, inflation accelerates exponentially, doubling and redoubling the number of the pocket universes it inflates very rapidly.

4.  The doubling time is of the order of 10-34 seconds. (About a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.)

5.  Any observers (like us) living inside a pocket universe would observe the same history as any other other observer, located in any other pocket universe.

6.  "The same history" means that each observer would conclude that for them, space and time began with the inflation of their own particular pocket universe.

7.  But this conclusion is misleading because all they are observing is the beginning of their particular pocket universe.

8.  It is the beginning of the entire inflationary process (and not the beginning of any pocket universe) that marks the true beginning of space and time.

9.  But it is impossible for any observer anywhere to observe this because each episode of inflation completely erases all trace of what preceded it.

10.  Each observer, isolated in their own pocket universe can only see back in time as far as their own particular Big Bang - the beginning of their own particular pocket universe.

 

Now, the above details about inflationary theory are the result of combining General Relativity (GR) with particle physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Since GR is integral to inflation, the ground rules of GR must be followed at all times.  While almost everyone has heard of GR, what it says about the status of any observer is often overlooked and/or misunderstood.  In GR there is no fixed or absolute frame of reference for any observer (human or otherwise) anywhere or anywhen.  The status of all observers is relative to every other.  No observer can claim or assume that they observe any part of the universe from a special or privileged vantage point.  The status of all observers is exactly equal to all others.  This is because GR is 'general' and applies generally to all observers, equalizing their status everywhere and everywhen.

 

The result of taking this measure into account and applying it to ourselves in the context of the ten points listed above is as follows.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we observe space and time beginning with our own particular pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we are denied any knowledge of what preceded the beginning of our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can only observe the effects of inflation within our own pocket universe.

Just like any other observer in any other pocket universe, we can use use our observations of these effects to understand the following.

 

A.  Our particular pocket universe is not all that there is.

B.  Our particular pocket universe is just one of many.

C.  Many pocket universes are being inflated right now and many more will be inflated in the future.  This is because inflation never ends.

D.  Because we have no special or privileged status over any other observers anywhere, we cannot lay claim to be living in the very first such universe to be inflated. 

E.  Doing that would violate the ground rules of GR and also violate the Copernican principle.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

F.  Since we cannot claim to be the very first observers in the very first pocket universe we must accept that the mediocrity of our status.

G. That many pocket universes and many other observers living within them have preceded us in the never-ending process of inflation.

 

If G is accepted, then we can use the ten listed points about inflation to gain a better understanding of how many pocket universes have preceded ours.  

That is, we can gain a glimpse of just what... 'an indefinitely-long period of inflation' ...really means.  That would be the next step, once G is accepted.  But for now I'll pause and field any questions you guys might have.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

This is where the theoretical science is running very close to the philosophy I've been promoting about the past as a bottomless pit, necessarily. There is some inkling of a beginning for inflation, but not the inflation of our observable universe, which, immediately discredits christian claims right there. No special creation, no special world, no special people, certainly no chosen few, etc. None of that is supported by the cosmological model in any way. The issue of past eternal for this purpose doesn't even matter. The cosmology doesn't have to have a theory of past eternal in order to refute Genesis 1:1 as a claim supported by science (the apologist's claim), the issue of an indefinite past along with the earth not being the first, or a one off event is substantial enough to counter those particular apologetic's. 

 

Even without the apologetic's of claiming that the BBT proves Genesis 1:1 correct, the fact that the bible claims (1) a beginning for the universe (heaven's) and (2) a universe with only the earth existing within the universe, doesn't gel with any science at all. There's no theory where the earth existed alone in the universe, aside from within the pages of this ancient creation myth, based entirely on creation myths which were around a long time before it. He seems to be well within serving the purpose of his argument. 

 

Regardless of the objections we've raised so far about the limitations of science, and the place of science. None of that seems to matter with respect to the argument he's making here. It can be mixed and matched with arguments from philosophy and comparative world mythology and religion, as well as from academic biblical criticism. They altogether completely sever any one trying to make a truth claim about Genesis 1:1. 

 

When some one can not, by any stretch, successfully make a truth claim about Genesis 1:1, let alone Genesis 1:2,3,4,5,6,7..., that said person can not very well achieve a truth claim about the rest of the bible either. This is a straight submission hold from the outset. Right to the floor, locked up and tapped out immediately. Do not pass go.

 

None, shall, pass!

[Joshpantera]

  On 01/11/2017 at 3:39 PM, sdelsolray said:

Please provide empirical evidence of a "pocket universe" other than our own.

 

No empirical evidence can ever be provided.

 

All of the above is inferred from the effects of inflation within this pocket universe. 

When science cannot proceed by empirical evidence, it proceeds by inference.   These inferences can be indirectly tested by how well inflation's predictions match up with what we observe within this pocket universe.  The many confirmed predictions made by inflationary theory give us confidence that it is the best explanation, not just for the origin of our pocket universe, but of all pocket universes.  On that basis and following the necessary ground rules set down by GR and the Copernican principle, we infer that what we have discovered about inflation here (the ten listed points) applies elsewhere.  

sdelsolray, please note that almost all of cosmology proceeds on the basis of this kind of inference.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

I'd say that he was well within reason to use inference in a substantial way for the purpose of the argument he laid out here. Again, the objections so far don't seem to outweigh the argument he was making. There's only so far one can take an argument against inference, unless they plan on wiping out a large part of cosmology itself. As the above seems to make quite clear. 

 

I'm going to keep going through this play by play. 

[Joshpantera]

Quote

 

Thanks, LG.  But I'd rather you were harsh.

 

When I was putting together the OP I reckoned that I was on to something, but lacked the necessary wherewithal to formulate it correctly. 

Like your brother, I'm good at cosmology, but not so good when it comes to presenting the premises and conclusion of an argument in the correct manner.   Hence this invitation to my fellow members to test this.  The feedback has been gold for me and several more pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place over the last few days.  But I'm not doing this for me, of course.   Whatever I learn through the experience of having my argument tested in this way will be fed back into Ex-C, for the general benefit of those members leaving Christianity. 

 

As an aside, the hard thinking I've been doing here has yielded an unexpected side effect.

I've unearthed something about the Big Bang singularity which I believe relates to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.   So, even if I thought I was on to something here and wasn't,  maybe I'm on to something else!

 

I'm pleased you've found this thread so enjoyable, btw.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

And it has. This gift of Mark's perspective, I believe, can be of service to others just as he intended. With the help of those who understand it carrying the torch thereafter, of course. If it works, then it works. It lays out many a good point, by the book as he pointed out. All of these objections about not being able to observe parallel universes are really besides the point. The only thing that matters here is that (1) apologist's like WLC have decided to enter into the science arena to make their arguments and (2) those arguments fall flat within the arena of science that they stepped into, an arena largely consisting of INFERENCE as a perfectly valid way of approaching things like the beginning of the universe, for instance. If that's a problem, then science and cosmology is a problem and what are we even talking about then? 

 

Of what value to an apologist is trying to use cosmology only to then resort to throwing out cosmology because that's what tossing inference basically does, as Mark clearly outlined in this argument? 

 

Mark has backed them into a corner in this way, very intentionally no doubt. 

 

Do they want to appeal to science and cosmology, or don't they? 

 

Which is it? 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

In either case, cue a William Lane Craig interview like this one... http://video.foxnews.com/v/3372449786001/?#sp=show-clips

Back in 2014 he took advantage of the fact that like most people Lauren Green didn't understand that the Big Bang we observe at the beginning of OUR universe isn't the true beginning of the entire inflationary process. He knew that and exploited her ignorance, letting her reach the false conclusion that inflation DID begin with us.   That's a lie.   It's a lie by the deliberate and willful omission of vital knowledge - with the explicit intention of misleading others.

 

Also, when he says that God can create as many universes as He likes, Craig is careful NOT to say that ours is not special and not the first such universe.

He lets Green think that everything began with us, according to God's divine plan.  He let's her conclude that we are special and are the very first universe to exist.  But the Copernican Principle, General Relativity and Inflationary theory itself all DEMAND that we make no such claims about our universe.   

 

I'll leave this here, for your responses, questions and comments.

At a later point we can delve into the numbers involved and see just how much Craig is leaving unmentioned.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

WLC is a slime ball in this way. Deserving of such a harsh discourse. 

 

Basically, "liars for the lord," like this degenerate deserve all of the exposure they'll receive from an argument such as Mark tried laying out for us to use against them. And to use to teach others who may be inclined to falling victim to this sort of blatant deception. I know Mark may have seemed over zealous about cosmology and the truth of it, but he was no idiot. He knew the uncertainties involved in trying to craft these types of arguments from theoretical cosmology. And he also knew exactly how and why those uncertainties don't really matter to the point of the argument being presented. I can see that as I read through all of the objections and responses. Again, I think it's good to re-analyze his thread here for the purpose of considering how it relates to Genesis 1:1 and also how it relates to all of the other valuable contributions that have been made here already. 

 

It looks very to the purpose of this website. 

 

Very much in the service of others for Mark to have tried to consolidate all of this. 

[Joshpantera]

  On 11/15/2017 at 3:26 PM, disillusioned said:

BAA, I think you may be playing a little fast and loose with the numbers here.

 

Yes, the number of potential pocket universes is very large. Unthinkably large. But so are the number of variables in the patterns that you referred to in your original argument. For example, the pattern that I call "myself" would be slightly different if I had eaten something different for breakfast today, or in fact on any day of my life. The number of ways in which I could be different than I am is unthinkably large. Moreover, I would contend that this number probably can't be properly computed. I don't know whether or not the number of hypothetical pocket universes can be precisely calculated either. Do you know this number? But in the absence of even one of these two numbers, I'm not sure how we could actually state with any surety that any pattern will necessarily repeat itself over and over again.

 

Yes Disillusioned, I am playing fast and loose with the numbers.  Deliberately so.

 

I am massively understating them, for the sake of simplification and ease of understanding.

My wording was... "For the sake of ease, let's suppose that it takes one second for the very first pocket universe to be 'inflated'."  I used the interval of one second for two reasons.   Because the count of one second is easily understood by everyone and because I could post the video, which lasts for 120 seconds - an easily grasped length of time.  I had hoped to convey the idea that even using timescales that are easily understood, the number of pocket universes generated by inflation is so large that the repetition of patterns across the entire ensemble of them rapidly becomes realized.

 

I asked that we suppose it takes a second to inflate a pocket universe.  

But according to Inflationary theory, the actual interval in which this happens is a trillion, trillion, trillionth of a second.  An unimaginably short duration and one that the human mind finds difficult to grasp.  In the next trillion, trillion, trillionth of a second two pocket universes are inflated.  Then, using this doubling interval, the exponentially-accelerating cascade of pocket universe inflation follows the pattern we see in the video.   Hence the three questions about your age, the age of the Earth and the age of our pocket universe.  They are meant to get you thinking about how many pocket universes inflation would generate if it had been running at the artificially (and glacially) slow rate of one per second.

 

If inflation had started when you were born and has been exponentially accelerating since then, how many pocket universes would it have inflated by now?

If inflation had started when the Earth was formed and has been exponentially accelerating since then, how many pocket universes would it have inflated by now?

If inflation had started when our pocket universe came to be and has been exponentially accelerating since then, how many pocket universes would it have inflated by now?

 

But, both the Copernican Principle (CP) and General Relativity (GR) forbid us from assuming that inflation began here... with our pocket universe.

Both CP and GR explicitly require us to drop the notion of a fixed and absolute frame of reference, based upon only what we observe.  Once we drop that notion we cannot and must not assume that inflation began here, with us.  To do that would be to elevate our status (we are the first) above all other observers of the inflationary process.  The outcome of this is that we must conclude that the process of inflation began an arbitrarily long time before it caused our particular pocket universe to come into existence.  We must conclude that the count of time and the inflation of space did NOT begin 13.72 billion years ago, in what we now call our observable universe.  Instead we must conclude that inflation began exponentially accelerating an unimaginably long time before it inflated our particular pocket universe.

 

One thing that the objections seem to be hung up on, is the idea of replications of the earth and ourselves out there beyond the observable universe. Thinking about how that plays out literally. And then trying to poo poo the entire IRP because that notion doesn't seem to sit well with many of you. There's almost a sense of an emotional objection to the idea of copies of the earth and ourselves out there beyond the visible universe, perhaps infinitely. Or at least currently running into the distance which should stretch out to infinity.

 

But I think, once again, this is all besides the point. The infinity aspect is not the meat of the matter in this instance, like it is with the philosophical angles I was discussing previously. 

 

The only point that even matters to this argument is that there's no sense of our observable universe being (1) the first to inflate or (2) the last to inflate. and therefore (3) special or privileged like the bible claims in Genesis 1:1 

 

The infinite aspect isn't important to the purpose of countering WLC and the Kalam argument. 

[Joshpantera]

Quote

A brief overview of other contending cosmological theories readily shows why the Christians do not use them.

 

Stephen Hawking's No Boundary theory offers a complete and entirely natural solution to the origin of the universe.  Steinhardt's Ekpyrotic theory is cyclic and fully eternal, totally removing the need for a creator.  This is also the case with Penrose's Conformal Cyclic theory.  Aguirre's modification of Inflation removes the incompleteness of it's past boundary, making it past and future eternal.  None of the above give the Christians what they need to reconcile Genesis with cosmology - a starting point.  Hence the intensity with which the apologists focus on and fight for Inflation.

 

 

 

This I need to look deeper into. That's the very thing I was looking for in terms of what changed Mark's attitude over the last few years about a bottomless past. I suppose a modification to Inflation removing it's past boundary would be reason for such a change. That's a citation rabbit hole I need to veer off into for a while as I go through all of this. 

 

 

Quote

Just as we were given the Law, the Prophets, the Messiah, the Apostles and the Bible, so they will also have all of these things.

 

But all the other Christs who die on all the other crosses of all these other Earths won't be THE one and only sacrifice for sin that God the Father requires.  That sacrifice happened only here.  Or did it?  Since Christianity functions on faith and not on evidence, how can we ever know if our Jesus Christ is the one who has the power to save people from hell?   The answer is that we can't know - we can only go by faith and believe we are saved. 

 

Anyway, that was how I'd aimed my argument to run.

Thanks to the testing it's receiving here it looks as if it might not pan out.  But that's just fine by me.  There's little point in putting something up for testing if one's not prepared for it to fail the test.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

This jesus bit entered into the argument doesn't look very hot, but Mark seemed to get that. It goes too far to even try and speculate and reason about how the christian mythology would pan out according to a multiverse. We were on firm ground and then this aside. Seems like he was playing around with where to take it. But then second guessing himself. And rightfully so. Applying it to the Kalam argument seems the best suited. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Quote

1. 

If the whole of creation is in bondage to decay (because of sin) then this would surely mean ALL of these duplicate Earths are in bondage too and their inhabitants can only be liberated and redeemed by Jesus Christ.  But since scripture also says that his sacrifice was made once only, whichever Earth this applies to is the only one where God's grace has the power to save.  Therefore, God's grace is supremely impotent and ineffectual across the infinite sweep of His creation.  He can only save the inhabitants of one Earth, because that is the only location where He incarnated Himself as His own Son, to sacrifice Himself to Himself and to satisfy His own inflexible requirement for blood.

 

2.

But if scripture means that only this pocket universe and only this Earth is in bondage to sin, decay and death, then are all of these other Earths untouched by sin?  

Is our world the only one of many planets to fall, as per the Earth in C.S. Lewis' space trilogy?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Space_Trilogy

 

3.

If Christian apologists happily add the Fine-Tuned Universe argument to Inflationary theory, then they can't cherry pick from the consequences of their decision.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, once the Inflationary process begins, it never ends.  In the parlance of cosmology, it is future eternal.  For the Christians this has two very unpalatable consequences.   If God's grace does extend to every other Earth and not just this one, then Jesus' sacrifice needs to be made not just once, but an infinite number of times, forever onward.  Which would make the final chapters of Revelation apply only to this particular pocket universe.  Here God is worshiped in glory in the New Jerusalem, having finished His work here, once and for all.   Meanwhile, He's also increasingly busy across the Multiverse sacrificing Himself to Himself on an infinity of other earths.  

 

Or, if His grace is only good for one Earth, then even when He winds things up here, He's still using Inflation to create an infinite supply of damned humans to feed the flames of hell.   Having saved just one Earth,  He chooses not save any others.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

This only really applies to having the apologist's accept an inflationary multiverse, therefore having to account for what that means to their privileged views. 

 

Basically the same nonsense that christianity makes here, extends out to infinite non-sense when applied to an infinite and eternal cosmological model like inflation. This may not be entirely throw away. But the argument, I think, is much better suited to going after Genesis 1:1 than to trying to extent it into the NT. But I suppose it could be. The apologist's have their heads taken at Genesis 1:1, and then follow the wake of possible implications down the line. For Mark's sake, I'll try and take this all in and see what comes of it. 

 

He's basically still holding their feet to the fire for entering the arena of science and cosmology and forcing them to face what implications they necessarily take upon themselves for having done so. It just gets a bit silly at this point, but still, the point is being made. They essentially dig themselves deeper into a hole for entering into the arena of cosmology. It doesn't get any better for them, it just gets progressively worse and down right foolish the further you think about what implications stem from their apologetic moves. 

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎25‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 3:45 PM, Joshpantera said:

I like to point out the problems by way of the philosophical issues first (the problem of fixed beginnings, natural eternal existence being much simpler than supernatural eternal beings, etc.), and then get right into the problems of scriptural contradiction. I feel like I would prefer to introduce Mark's final argument thirdly, recapping again from Genesis 1:1 forward after already having established the philosophical problems and the blatant contractions which apply to both literalistic and symbolic interpretations alike. By the time the scientific issues are introduced they don't necessarily make or brake the argument itself, it's just more supporting evidence in the form on inference and whatever it can be honestly and responsibly used to do. I think we should be careful to remain as intellectually honest as possible when addressing creationist's or whoever it may be. 

 

I do really like this point. Basing the argument first on strong philosophical foundations, then on good supporting science. 

 

On ‎25‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 4:05 PM, Joshpantera said:

Us: furthermore, what we do know about the BBT and an expanding universe, is that eventually the universe will 'appear' to be static just as the old pagan myths had portrayed it. What then will that say about the "creation ex nihilo" of Genesis 1:1?

 

Brilliant point. I was just listening to Krauss on "A Universe from nothing - A discussion with Dawkins" in which he basically says just this. They talked about a hypothetical observer in 1 trillion years, and noted that by that point the universe through entropy would have erased all evidence of its beginning. Thus a person living there would concluded that their galaxy, and possibly their solar system was the only one and had been there forever.

 

However he was also cautious to say that it was possible that they may also have access to data at that time which we don't currently have.

 

He did say that it seemed we live at a privileged time in which we can just see back to the big bang. But again what could we see and know were we to live 2 billion years from TBB?

 

During the weekend I was listening to other debates and lectures which had some good points... that's gotten lost in memory. I really should write points down as I hear them.

 

I was going to play a clip from the Hitchens vs Turek debate because Turek made an argument which this thread would directly counter so I thought I might find it so we can hear what an apologist might actually say and how we'd form a response.

[disillusioned]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

I was going to play a clip from the Hitchens vs Turek debate because Turek made an argument which this thread would directly counter so I thought I might find it so we can hear what an apologist might actually say and how we'd form a response.

 

 

This could be an interesting exercise.

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

He did say that it seemed we live at a privileged time in which we can just see back to the big bang. But again what could we see and know were we to live 2 billion years from TBB?

 

On the point of privilege, I don't off hand see this statement as actually violating the CP. I could see an apologist jumping at the opportunity to throw back the CP in our faces over such a statement, thinking they'd found a clever jab. But our vision of the universe, and the future entropy vision, would be viewed evenly between all observers in both cases according to the CP, I'd think. That probably needs verification but that's my off the cuff thoughts on an apologist potentially taking that route. 

 

 

5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

I was going to play a clip from the Hitchens vs Turek debate because Turek made an argument which this thread would directly counter so I thought I might find it so we can hear what an apologist might actually say and how we'd form a response.

 

 

This too. I'd like to run this exercise. Turek is a pretty sophisticated apologist in some ways. I'd give him more respect than WLC. But he's an apologist, and by default subject to a huge weight around his leg because of it. The foundations (Genesis 1:1) of the bible, therefore christianity, are weak at the base. How could Turek, or any christian for that matter, regardless of IQ and or credentials, ever beat any one who has their number?