Conquer Club

Neoteny wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:I've been stymied by a naughty keyboard today.
I may have time to respond later now that I've dug an old and clunky (but working!) one out and plugged it in.

Does it have that old hardware smell?

More like mummified - I think it's pre-pentium.

BTW, sorry not to respond yet - helping the kids study, getting the curlette to rehearsals, feeding everyone, laughing helpessly at the Flintstone-era keyboard, all kept me busy.

Is it one that makes that loud click, almost like a typewriter, when you hit a key? Those were great. They were frickin' machines. I miss my old whatevercamewithmy486 keyboard...

I was acquiver with anticipation about the next step, that OA alluded too, in this thread. So, do you guys agree that nobody has an explanation about the beginning of the universe that does not violate causation? OA's put forth an interesting point; I'd certainly like to see where it goes next.

There is no reason that "causation" has to be a limiting factor on the universe and it beginning, if any, its middle, and its end, if any.

Really, let's hear it. What backs that assertion up. If causation isn't a limiting factor in the Universe, then that puts a crimp in scientific study which relies on it. How can one have an experimental model without the idea that something causes something else, dependent and independent variables being what they are to the scientific method.

Are you suggesting that the rule of causation is only something to cast aside when it's convenient to do so? What is the theory of the expanding Universe if not a testament to causation initiated by the Big Bang?

CrazyAnglican wrote:I was acquiver with anticipation about the next step, that OA alluded too, in this thread. So, do you guys agree that nobody has an explanation about the beginning of the universe that does not violate causation? OA's put forth an interesting point; I'd certainly like to see where it goes next.

I agree with that. We are closer to knowing these answers than we were yesterday. That is for sure. But, The question predisposes that there was a beginning. We are caught up in our world of finite things. Everything we know of in our world is finite, even the number of grains of sand on the planet. So it is very hard indeed to comprehend the infinite. We just haven't discovered the right tools, or math if you will, to even try to solve this equation. The nature of an eternal God has the same kind of paradoxical equations. It just may turn out that both sides of this religious debate are both right. We just may be describing the same force from two different perspectives.
This question of Eternity, or God if you prefer, has been pondered by mankind for a Melina.
Your side has concluded it seems that the answer can be found in a collection of books written a thousand or so years ago. My side believes that the study of our world around us will bring us the truth. And since we know more today than we did yesterday through this study, I really think that the logical thing to do, at least for me and many others, is to continue to learn through this scientific study. Your side has NOT brought us any closer to this end. Without Science, we would still be burning witches, and hitching up the horse for a ride to work.

CrazyAnglican wrote:Really, let's hear it. What backs that assertion up. If causation isn't a limiting factor in the Universe, then that puts a crimp in scientific study which relies on it. How can one have an experimental model without the idea that something causes something else, dependent and independent variables being what they are to the scientific method.

Are you suggesting that the rule of causation is only something to cast aside when it's convenient to do so? What is the theory of the expanding Universe if not a testament to causation initiated by the Big Bang?

Science is about answering questions. A previous theory is only valuable to the extent it advances the exploration and aids in the development of a new, better theory. Science will abandon dead ends, and will drop restrictive rules if a better approach is available. The purpose is to explain, not to fit an explanation into a pat formula. So causation does not have to be a restriction on any answer to the nature of the universe.

mpjh wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:Really, let's hear it. What backs that assertion up. If causation isn't a limiting factor in the Universe, then that puts a crimp in scientific study which relies on it. How can one have an experimental model without the idea that something causes something else, dependent and independent variables being what they are to the scientific method.

Are you suggesting that the rule of causation is only something to cast aside when it's convenient to do so? What is the theory of the expanding Universe if not a testament to causation initiated by the Big Bang?

Science is about answering questions. A previous theory is only valuable to the extent it advances the exploration and aids in the development of a new, better theory. Science will abandon dead ends, and will drop restrictive rules if a better approach is available. The purpose is to explain, not to fit an explanation into a pat formula. So causation does not have to be a restriction on any answer to the nature of the universe.

That was not what I asked if you would agree to. I asked if you agree to the following:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

Given that I am proposing that existence defies logic, I hardly think I'm limiting the possibilities to what fits within "restrictive rules."

porkenbeans wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:I was acquiver with anticipation about the next step, that OA alluded too, in this thread. So, do you guys agree that nobody has an explanation about the beginning of the universe that does not violate causation? OA's put forth an interesting point; I'd certainly like to see where it goes next.

I agree with that. We are closer to knowing these answers than we were yesterday. That is for sure. But, The question predisposes that there was a beginning. We are caught up in our world of finite things. Everything we know of in our world is finite, even the number of grains of sand on the planet. So it is very hard indeed to comprehend the infinite. We just haven't discovered the right tools, or math if you will, to even try to solve this equation. The nature of an eternal God has the same kind of paradoxical equations. It just may turn out that both sides of this religious debate are both right. We just may be describing the same force from two different perspectives.

Cool, so that's an agreement? As to the other, I'm not sure of the OP's intent & I'm interested in seeing where he's going. Therefore I'll respond later if it becomes the issue, but as yet we're agreed that nobody has an explanation of the beginning of hte Universe (or our own existence) that doesn't defy logic.

CrazyAnglican wrote:but as yet we're agreed that nobody has an explanation of the beginning of hte Universe (or our own existence) that doesn't defy logic.

I'm actually making a stronger claim than that we just can't come up with a logical explanation: that is, that the explanation of the beginning of the Universe MUST defy logic due to existences' violation of causation. But that's a technicality. Now I would please ask mpjh/Snorri/jones to agree to this point so we can move on, or to argue it further. Again, I'm looking for agreement to the following point:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

There are explanations for the beginning of this universe that do not defy logic.

mpjh wrote:There are explanations for the beginning of this universe that do not defy logic.

Such as? Any explanation must either include an uncaused cause or infinite regression, both of which defy logic.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:but as yet we're agreed that nobody has an explanation of the beginning of hte Universe (or our own existence) that doesn't defy logic.

I'm actually making a stronger claim than that we just can't come up with a logical explanation: that is, that the explanation of the beginning of the Universe MUST defy logic due to existences' violation of causation. But that's a technicality. Now I would please ask mpjh/Snorri/jones to agree to this point so we can move on, or to argue it further. Again, I'm looking for agreement to the following point:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

So, we wait?

CrazyAnglican wrote:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

CrazyAnglican wrote:but as yet we're agreed that nobody has an explanation of the beginning of hte Universe (or our own existence) that doesn't defy logic.

I'm actually making a stronger claim than that we just can't come up with a logical explanation: that is, that the explanation of the beginning of the Universe MUST defy logic due to existences' violation of causation. But that's a technicality. Now I would please ask mpjh/Snorri/jones to agree to this point so we can move on, or to argue it further. Again, I'm looking for agreement to the following point:

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

So, we wait?

Since mpjh is apparently trying to show us an explanation for the beginning of the Universe which does NOT involve an uncaused cause or infinite regression, I'd say the wait will be worth it

Yeah, it should be good. Mr. mpjh, sir, you have the floor.

the big bang for one

String theory for another

mpjh wrote:the big bang for one

String theory for another

I'm not all too familiar with string theory, but I don't think you're thinking on the right track. The Big Bang theory is NOT an explanation for how the universe came to be, it's a proposition for how it came to be in the shape that it is in now. Where stuff came from is what we're getting at, NOT how matter came to be in the state it is.

Basically it boils down to this: what caused the big bang? What caused what caused the big bang? You ask these questions until you reach one of two points: An uncaused cause or infinite regression. Both illogical.

Given that, can we now agree to this?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

There is also the loop quantum gravity theory and the big bounce as opposed to the big bang. Interesting thing here is that time is not linear. It runs one way before the bounce and another after. Thus, the linear concept of what came first is negated.

mpjh wrote:There is also the loop quantum gravity theory and the big bounce as opposed to the big bang. Interesting thing here is that time is not linear. It runs one way before the bounce and another after. Thus, the linear concept of what came first is negated.

Contrary to:

-Current scientific evidence which predicts the heat death of the universe, not an oscillatory return to a singularity

-Thermodynamics

...and time being circular is violates causation and is thus illogical. So again we are left with existence being contrary to human logic. So again will you concede that existence is contrary to human logic?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

mpjh wrote:the big bang for one

String theory for another

I'm not all too familiar with string theory, but I don't think you're thinking on the right track. The Big Bang theory is NOT an explanation for how the universe came to be, it's a proposition for how it came to be in the shape that it is in now. Where stuff came from is what we're getting at, NOT how matter came to be in the state it is.

Basically it boils down to this: what caused the big bang? What caused what caused the big bang? You ask these questions until you reach one of two points: An uncaused cause or infinite regression. Both illogical.

Given that, can we now agree to this?

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Existence defies human logic. Christians choose one illogical explanation for the universe, while atheists do not choose any particular explanation for the Universe, but concede that the true explanation (whatever it may be) must defy logic.

I was leaning towards the idea of the Big Crunch that postulates that after the Big bang expands out far enough it eventually slows and then begins to collapse back on itself until finally coming back together and creating another Big Bang. This process is continued for eternity. There seems to be a snag though. The universe is apparently speeding up and not slowing down in its expansion.
Existence does not defy logic in my opinion. It only defies what we are able to perceive of logic. The final equation will be logical once we understand the math.

Actually, there are scientists predicting a return to a singularity.

porkenbeans wrote: Existence does not defy logic in my opinion. It only defies what we are able to perceive of logic. The final equation will be logical once we understand the math.

No, porky, it won't, because of the problems of an uncaused cause or infinite regression. Math doesn't factor into either of them.

"Logic" is a manmade way of demonstrating things and understanding the world. "What we are able to perceive of logic" IS logic, because logic is a man-made creation. What I am looking for is a concession that the laws of logic as we know them are apparently breakable because logic does not allow us to understand existence.

mpjh wrote:Actually, there are scientists predicting a return to a singularity.

I would ask you to cite them, but to do so would be pointless because I'm sure you'd just direct me to google; and it has no bearing on the conversation at hand. Given that science, as you stated earlier, is not bound by logic, and given that I am only asking you to concede that existence violates the laws of logic, what scientists are proposing isn't particularly relevant.

goggle it

I never said that science is not bounded by logic.

OnlyAmbrose wrote:

porkenbeans wrote: Existence does not defy logic in my opinion. It only defies what we are able to perceive of logic. The final equation will be logical once we understand the math.

No, porky, it won't, because of the problems of an uncaused cause or infinite regression. Math doesn't factor into either of them.

"Logic" is a manmade way of demonstrating things and understanding the world. "What we are able to perceive of logic" IS logic, because logic is a man-made creation. What I am looking for is a concession that the laws of logic as we know them are apparently breakable because logic does not allow us to understand existence.

I'd have to disagree. Hundreds of years ago, with the current available evidence and science of the day, it was logical to believe in a flat earth. Now it is not. Reaching a logical conclusion on something is based on your current evidence available, and more evidence is coming in all the time, and old evidence is being disproven. Also, logic as in math equations can sometimes contradict what seems to be logic when just looking at something.