Wow, does the KCA still get pushed around like it actually means something? I guess some people just really, really want it to be true.

How insulting - we all have other commitments, and choose to spend some of our extremely limited time here because it's something we care passionately about - the thirst for knowledge first, and the witty repartee second.

Edit - sorry all - I don't speak for everyone, so change all the 'us' bits to singular.

Bud's Brain wrote:How insulting - we all have other commitments, and choose to spend some of our extremely limited time here because it's something we care passionately about - the thirst for knowledge first, and the witty repartee second.

Edit - sorry all - I don't speak for everyone, so change all the 'us' bits to singular.

No, you can include me among the "us". It's fine if Maryann doesn't have to time to participate. But then she just, uh, shouldn't participate. That means not dropping in to spam the board with thinly disguised ads for her (excrementally awful ego trip of a) blog then disappear again after telling us we're not worth her precious time.

I would never ask you to neglect your family or put your job at risk just to keep in touch w/ me--and if that's what y'all are doing, knock that crap off and wake up. This is not where it's at. This is virtual. We are all real people, but in-person interaction is where it is at. I got puked on at work today, now I come here and spend my precious spare time to get puked on some more? Lay off, will ya?

IIzO you did not read my reply very closely. I said it does not follow that the cause of the physical is uncaused. The physical has a cause--read Greene. Also, if the word universe (unqualified) means "all that exists" and if God is included in it, then, as pertains to the argument, precede the word universe with the word physical. Wa-la. Note that the self-bootstrapping universe is not the only faith-option for the atheist (who has claimed the title atheist, not agnostic)--there is also the option of believing that there is an infinite regress of those caused supernatural (personal or nonpersonal un-god) beings (of which there is no hard evidence). The "counter-evidence" I am referring to (against blind-faithfully believing in a self-bootstrapping "physical" universe, as Dawkins does), is in bold and underlined in the paragraph below:

xrayzed Greene is saying there is a cycle 1. I believe I quoted the relevant passage(s) earlier up in the thread. A being WHO does the doing is misleading, I should change that. When you said, "So a being must exist for it to do something. True, if somewhat trivial." you were agreeing with my '2'. Regarding the WHO--I had in my mind all the stuff from my Ethics work-in-progress (need to study more Sartre) (don't even ask me to explain, I'm not ready) ("becoming"--coming into being--if a being already exists, it is too late for it to come into being...if it does not yet exist, it cannot yet be the being of any doing--see 3).

Even if I accept that within the logic of our physical universe everything must ultimately begin with a being (which clearly I don't), you can't then apply that to that which is outside of our universe.

Oh yes I sure can. It applies to all being. Logic and math and all that--ground rules for being.

if it is possible that there is a sentient being that a) is the ultimate origin of our universe, b) is exempt from the rules of our universe, and c) cannot be understood in terms of the rules our our universe, it is also possible that there is a non-sentient universe that a) is the ultimate origin of our universe, b) is exempt from the rules of our universe, and c) cannot be understood in terms of the rules our our universe.

Niether possibility would be exempt from logic and math and all that--the sentient possibility being the origin of all that (Logos). Concluding in either possibility requires faith.

our rules can be applied, in which case your assertion is invalid

To which assertion are you referring, and how would it be invalid?

If you assume a simple linear arrow of time that must exist for the universe(s), that has a clear sequential causal chain back to time = 0, then arguably (but not necessarily - I'll ignore the nuances for now) yes.

But you don't apply this simple linear arrow of time to your god, or else you would have a self-bootstrapping god. Your solution to this is to say that the rules of time in our universe needn't apply to a god outside it - in which case these rules needn't apply to anything outside it, be it a god or a non-sentient thing that is the cause of our universe.

So make a choice: everything must have a cause, or not.

Whether or not there is a time zero, there is a beginning to the physical--read Greene. It is not time zero that matters here, it is the beginning of the physical. Dawkins actually uses the words "self-bootstrapping" unless I am mistaken. I do not apply such things as entropy to God, no. God is non-physical (transcending, even when taking on flesh). Time is relevant to God's immanence, but God also transcends. The same would (presumably) be true if the cause of the physical is not God (transcending the physical, but also being immanent within it--kinda like 3-D's relation to 1-D. Your final sentence is kinda weird and out of the blue. My assertion is that something with a beginning cannot cause itself, and you have agreed. Why would we even agree w/ that, if we did not agree on causation? And if we agree on causation, then we agree that something with a beginning needs a cause other than itself. I don't have all the details worked out. I'd love to have that done, but, gee, I just don't have a lot of time.

I'd love to hear what you all have to say once you're done w/ Greene.

IIzO you did not read my reply very closely.

Okay?

I said it does not follow that the cause of the physical is uncaused.

Excuse me wth is one supposed to understand by "physical" as opposed to what ?

The physical has a cause--read Greene.

Does this Greene dude used the word "physical" as opposed to something "not physical" ?

Also, if the word universe (unqualified) means "all that exists" and if God is included in it, then, as pertains to the argument, precede the word universe with the word physical.

You are the one playing with the word physical to equivocate the existence of something else that is "not physical" , do you consider dark matter , dark energy , gravity and electro magnetism to be physical ? Arn't you just pursuing a strawman ?

Wa-la.

Note that the self-bootstrapping universe is not the only faith-option for the atheist

Oh cool hasty generalisations , and strawman in one sentence.logical arugmentation failure.Nobody is taking anything "by faith" here, or do you pretend that people here claim to know the answer about the "begining" or "infinity" origins of the universe ? Citation or gtfo (lies merits this kind of reaction).

(who has claimed the title atheist, not agnostic)

And now semtantic failure ,agnosticism and atheism arn't mutually exclusives , agnosticism concerns knwoledge and atheism belief , many atheists here are skeptics , meaning that without any justification they simply don't believe , for general deism and non illogical god concepts many are agnostics (claiming that knowledge is either impossible or not yet obtained) atheist (because they have no reason to believe without justifications).

--there is also the option of believing that there is an infinite regress of those caused supernatural (personal or nonpersonal un-god) beings (of which there is no hard evidence).

Sure , at the end of the day without evidences there is nothing to believe for the skeptic.

The "counter-evidence" I am referring to (against blind-faithfully believing in a self-bootstrapping "physical" universe, as Dawkins does),

Dawkins claims that he knows the origin of the universe ?Oh , when i thought that the conservative position that is,no evidence for the supernatural and scientific method being the best known to inquire the observered universe , was simply more rational .

Ichthus77 wrote:I
I do not apply such things as entropy to God, no.

True, YOU do not apply such things as entropy to god.

God is non-physical

worthless made-up, unevidenced nonsense

(transcending, even when taking on flesh).

That's a lie.

Time is relevant to God's immanence,

schizophrenic word salad

but God also transcends.

worthless made-up unevidenced nonsense again.

The same would (presumably) be true if the cause of the physical is not God (transcending the physical, but also being immanent within it--kinda like 3-D's relation to 1-D.

Probably true

Your final sentence is kinda weird and out of the blue.

Maybe because you're too full of what you want to say next to follow along with what someone else is actually saying ...

My assertion is that something with a beginning cannot cause itself

Which is a completely worthless and ungrounded assertion bearing no relationship to reality,

and you have agreed.

No, you misunderstood and there is no agreement here.

Why would we even agree w/ that, if we did not agree on causation?

good question

And if we agree on causation,

Big IF

then we agree that something with a beginning needs a cause other than itself

.No one agrees with that except deluded theists who are trying to prop up their failing faith with an illogical justification dressed up in outworn philosophy

I don't have all the details worked out.

Finally, another true statement

I'd love to have that done, but, gee, I just don't have a lot of time.

I believe you. Maybe you should spend more time working on your faith and less time posting here insulting atheists for their "faith".

Could someone actually copy*pasta in this thread the passages from Brian Greene's book that are under debate so that everyone participating could have some more context ?

Please cite the passage from Greene's book. Greene does not say anywhere, in any of his books, that there was a 'beginning to the physical'. You have either completely misunderstood, or you are attempting a quote-mine. You will find that Greene is an advocated of cyclical mdels for cosmic instantiation, and he states so quite clearly.

AMR wrote:You three are definitely outside the scientific mainstream if you all hold there is essentially no need for an explanation of the cosmogenesis beyond the weak anthropic principal -- in essence "well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions", quite unscientific indeed. I urge you all to look into the cosmological constant -- just one parameter --we're talking fine tuned on the order of 10^120.

If I understand correctly those odds for "fine-tuning" are calculated by allowing one parameter to vary while keeping the other constants...um...constant, it is extremely dodgy to do that, Victor Stenger has dealt with these kinds of apologetics in the past.

Not only that, the fine-tuning refers to the parameters in our models, not of the universe.

Of course, not least since constants are arbitrarility introduced to make models involving proportionality compliant with observational reality, I suppose?

Ichthus,

Thanks for replying.

Ichthus77 wrote:Greene is saying there is a cycle 1. I believe I quoted the relevant passage(s) earlier up in the thread.

Perhaps you have, but I've done a search and I can't find it. All I've found is an your statement ...there is a beginning, using any model (considering entropy build-up and quantum hooplah), attested to by physicist Brian Greene".

It doesn't matter; I'll be buying his book.

A being WHO does the doing is misleading, I should change that.

OK, so you are using "being" to refer to a thing-that-exists?

When you said, "So a being must exist for it to do something. True, if somewhat trivial." you were agreeing with my '2'.

Yes, I was. It just doesn't help your argument, because...

Regarding the WHO--I had in my mind all the stuff from my Ethics work-in-progress (need to study more Sartre) (don't even ask me to explain, I'm not ready) ("becoming"--coming into being--if a being already exists, it is too late for it to come into being...if it does not yet exist, it cannot yet be the being of any doing--see 3).

...what you seem to be saying here (please correct me if I've misinterpreted this) is the universe cannot be what caused the universe to come into being, because the universe would need to already exist to make itself come into being.

It seems perfectly logical, but there's a problem. There is some confusion here due to ambiguity in what we mean by "universe".

It is quite possible (but not necessary - eg see Hawking's "no boundary" proposal) to say the universe began at the Big Bang, and equally to assert that the universe has always existed, if we are careful to distinguish between two conceptions of "the universe".

In the former case we're talking about the immediate universe of connected space-time that we can live in and can observe: the one with c. 10^11 galaxies, mainly empty space, about 13.7 billion years old, has various Laws that describe how various aspects work etc.

In the latter case we're talking about everything that exists that could include other universes/metaverses/ominverse/whatever-we-choose-to-call-them-verses. So something, say space and time, have always existed, and our universe is simply one branch of that universe.

To distinguish between them we could talk about our immediate universe (lower case) as opposed to the Universe (upper case). The universe began to exist. But there are parts of the Universe that have always existed.

Ichthus77 wrote:

xrayzed wrote:Even if I accept that within the logic of our physical universe everything must ultimately begin with a being (which clearly I don't), you can't then apply that to that which is outside of our universe.

Oh yes I sure can. It applies to all being. Logic and math and all that--ground rules for being.

Now you seem to contradicting yourself. You've tried to put the question of whether "some other being" has a beginning off-limits on the grounds that it is not part of the physical universe.

1) If your logic is valid in all realities than we can apply it to "some other being".
2) If we can't apply this logic to "some other being" than your logic is not universally applicable.

Let me know which position you want to hold and we'll go from there.

Ichthus77 wrote:

xrayzed wrote:if it is possible that there is a sentient being that a) is the ultimate origin of our universe, b) is exempt from the rules of our universe, and c) cannot be understood in terms of the rules our our universe, it is also possible that there is a non-sentient universe that a) is the ultimate origin of our universe, b) is exempt from the rules of our universe, and c) cannot be understood in terms of the rules our our universe.

Niether possibility would be exempt from logic and math and all that--the sentient possibility being the origin of all that (Logos). Concluding in either possibility requires faith.

No, no, no, no, no.

And no.

If you re-read the passage it is quite clear that I have not concluded anything. It is possible means it is possible. Please not that a lack of belief that something is true is not logically equivalent to an active belief that it is false.

My reason for favouring a non-theistic explanation is essentially inductive:

Evidence that a non-sentient universe exists: massive.
Evidence for a god: none.

Whether or not there is a time zero, there is a beginning to the physical--read Greene. It is not time zero that matters here, it is the beginning of the physical....

Addressed above.

Your final sentence is kinda weird and out of the blue. My assertion is that something with a beginning cannot cause itself, and you have agreed. Why would we even agree w/ that, if we did not agree on causation? And if we agree on causation, then we agree that something with a beginning needs a cause other than itself. I don't have all the details worked out. I'd love to have that done, but, gee, I just don't have a lot of time.

I think you found it weird because of the confusion over the different senses of "universe".

1) Something cannot cause itself: agreed
2) Something with a beginning needs a cause... not necessarily (eg virtual particles)
3) None of which has any bearing on my final sentence ("So make a choice: everything must have a cause, or not).

Let me re-frame it another way: why must something be sentient to be without a beginning?

I'd love to hear what you all have to say once you're done w/ Greene.

It may take a while to get to. I'm already have three books on the go, and would like to finish at least one of them before I start on Greene.

Don't quote me on this, but Brian Greene isn't into cyclic model theory, he's a string theory dude (not sure if they are mutually exclusive). When I said "there is a cycle 1" I didn't mean he agrees w/ the model. You should read it like this: "if the cyclic model is correct, there is a cycle 1". Dawkins is referring to the multiverse in Delusion (entropy would still apply).

Here is a relevant quote from Fabric: "The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started."

Of course he is not saying there is a God who started it (nor that there is something beyond the natural/physical that started it), nor is he even saying he agrees w/ the cyclic model (either way, I'd be willing to bet he's rootin' for the self-bootstrapping, circular argument universe that Dawkins is rootin' for--granted, Dawkins says he doesn't "know" this...but...that would be like me saying "I don't believe in logic, because it is possible there is a valid circular argument out there, we just haven't found it yet"). I have e-mailed Greene about that quote I just posted, and this is the last I heard from him:

Ichthus77 wrote:Guess who I heard back from?

I would say that no cyclic process that has any quantum probability for being disturbed (however small that probability may be) could have persisted indefinitely toward the past (or future).

All best,

BG

I just e-mailed him back for clarification, though. I was hoping he could generalize across all [edit] cosmological models, not just the cyclic one.

I don't have time to catch up w/ the recent posts. Just wanted to share my brush with awesomeness

Posted that back on page 5.

For those who disagree the atheist position is one of faith (and the agnostic position one of bad faith) read this:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith

That's all I have time for this morning. Have a beautiful day.

Ichthus77 wrote:Don't quote me on this, but Brian Greene isn't into cyclic model theory, he's a string theory dude (not sure if they are mutually exclusive).

They are not.

When I said "there is a cycle 1" I didn't mean he agrees w/ the model. You should read it like this: "if the cyclic model is correct, there is a cycle 1". Dawkins is referring to the multiverse in Delusion (entropy would still apply).

So ?Do you think atheists must thinkn like Dawkins or something ?

Here is a relevant quote from Fabric: "The cyclic model has its own share of shortcomings...consideration of entropy buildup (and also of quantum mechanics) ensures that the cyclic model's cycles could not have gone on forever. Instead, the cycles began at some definite time in the past, and so, as with inflation, we need an explanation of how the first cycle got started."

, and how many times do we need to tell you that except some theists no one pretends to know the explanation ?

Of course he is not saying there is a God who started it (nor that there is something beyond the natural/physical that started it)

So you were quote mining , and misentrepreting him for your own ideological unscientific bias .Good job.

, nor is he even saying he agrees w/ the cyclic model (either way, I'd be willing to bet he's rootin' for the self-bootstrapping, circular argument universe that Dawkins is rootin' for--granted,

This...

Dawkins says he doesn't "know" this..

..contradicts this , and you seem to be under the impression that dawkins is supposed to be some kind of authority amongst atheist personalizing the argument for whatever obscure agenda arn't you ?

.but...that would be like me saying "I don't believe in logic, because it is possible there is a valid circular argument out there, we just haven't found it yet").

What is this supposed to mean?What is dawkins supposed to believe ?What he claims he doesn't know?Could you cite the exact sentences from him you are trying to discuss so we have some context?You have already shown quote mining before so this is needed.

I have e-mailed Greene about that quote I just posted, and this is the last I heard from him:

Cool

I would say that no cyclic process that has any quantum probability for being disturbed (however small that probability may be) could have persisted indefinitely toward the past (or future).

All best,

BG

Woaw ,we have no working model for the existence of the universe, what a big news...wait not actually except you nobody has been pretending to know.

For those who disagree the atheist position is one of faith (and the agnostic position one of bad faith) read this:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith

That's all I have time for this morning. Have a beautiful day.

Read it , you don't understand what faith is .And you pretend that making a provisional conclusion with the avaible evidences is the same as having faith.I guess you have trouble with people not doing belief without jusfitication.
But you have one thing right , about many kind of deities , atheists are gnostic .The christian god is one of those i am gnostic about since he is self contradictory.I am agnostic about general Deism because it makes no sensible claims about the nature of the sentient being supposed to be the creator/initiator of the "universe" even if it can't be used as a final explanation.

Ichthus77 wrote:For those who disagree the atheist position is one of faith (and the agnostic position one of bad faith) read this:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith

That's all I have time for this morning. Have a beautiful day.

Are you capable of telling the truth ? Have you written even so much as one true thing in your life, Maryann ?

Here's your opening paragraph:

Maryann wrote:Even San Francisco's own atheist blogger, Greta Christina, is split on the issue of whether or not atheism is a belief or a lack of belief. In her April 15 Atheist Meme of the Day, she proclaims that atheism is not a belief, but more recently, in her June 10 daily meme, she affirmed that atheism is a belief in something bigger, although not God.

Note, that Maryann is already dishonestly manipulating the reader with her terms "proclaim" (not belief) then "affirm" (is a belief). She could have chosen the neutral "says" or even "claims" rather than "proclaims" - but Maryann wants to get her emotional hooks into her deluded fellow theists right off the bat. She chooses this distorted term for its resonance with the common meme that Gnu Atheists are strident and rude, that the mere existence of a person who publicly states he/she has no belief in god equates to that person standing at the pulpit thunderingly proclaiming the tenets of the "new true Atheist" doctrine. Then there's her choice of "affirm" with its connotations of prayerful repetition of woo dogma.

It's sleazy work, and Maryann should be ashamed of herself for it. But Maryann has more problems than her manipulative vocabulary -- it turns out that she's outright lying about what Greta actually says.

Here's Greta's quote at her first link -- the "proclaims is not a belief" one:

Greta Christina wrote:Today's Atheist Meme of the Day, from my Facebook page. Pass this on; or don't; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

Atheism is not a belief system. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the available evidence. If atheists see better evidence supporting the God hypothesis, we'll change our minds. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Well, that seems pretty self-evident, so let's move on to the quote Maryann chooses to directly lie about.

Here's Greta's quote at her second link -- the "affirms it is a belief" one:

Greta Christina wrote:Today's Atheist Meme of the Day. Pass this on; or don't; or edit it as you see fit; or make up your own. Enjoy!

Atheists do believe in something bigger than ourselves. We just don't believe that it's God, or anything supernatural. We believe in the universe, in humanity, in the arc of history, in principles of kindness and justice, and so on. Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.

Notice the difference between the actual quote and the lie Maryann tells about it? Nowhere does Greta say (or affirm ) that Atheism is a belief.

Maryann, you should be ashamed of yourself. You owe Greta Christina an apology for lying about her and for distorting her words for your own political purposes.

lying for jebus? Now where have we seen that before?

hotshoe wrote:

Ichthus77 wrote:For those who disagree the atheist position is one of faith (and the agnostic position one of bad faith) read this:
http://www.examiner.com/apologetics-in-san-francisco/reasons-for-faith-101-is-atheism-a-belief-or-a-lack-of-faith

That's all I have time for this morning. Have a beautiful day.

hotshoe wrote:

Are you capable of telling the truth ? Have you written even so much as one true thing in your life, Maryann ?

Hey, hotshoe. At the risk of drawing fire, this is getting too personal.

Well, I wrote it, and you quoted it, so I'll have to stand by it now. I think it's a legitimate question for our forum, similar to other (equally personal, I believe) challenges to Poes and trolls as to their intention to make any truthful contributions.

Our evidence so far is that Maryann has not written anything which is entirely true and which is free from one or more indirect or direct lies. Based solely on the evidence and not on personalities, I believe it is appropriate to ask Maryann if she sees her written lies as the truth.

Note that of course I am not proclaiming that Maryann personally is incapable of telling the truth.

hotshoe wrote:Well, I wrote it, and you quoted it, so I'll have to stand by it now. I think it's a legitimate question for our forum, similar to other (equally personal, I believe) challenges to Poes and trolls as to their intention to make any truthful contributions.

Our evidence so far is that Maryann has not written anything which is entirely true and which is free from one or more indirect or direct lies. Based solely on the evidence and not on personalities, I believe it is appropriate to ask Maryann if she sees her written lies as the truth.

Note that of course I am not proclaiming that Maryann personally is incapable of telling the truth.

I didn't report it - we're adults, after all, and are quite capable of policing ourselves.

Maryann wrote:
Don't quote me on this, but Brian Greene isn't into cyclic model theory, he's a string theory dude (not sure if they are mutually exclusive).

How can someone claim to understand Greene’s writing, or even be well acquainted with it and not know the relationship between string theory and branes?

@Hachenslash:
Here is what Maryann is going on about. It begins on page 404 and ends at page 412.

http://books.google.com/books?id=DNd2K6 ... al&f=false

Because of increasing entropy even in cyclical models cycles cannot be eternal. Therefore the “universe” had a beginning, and of course something had to be the “cause” of the beginning. Therefore God made it so.

With people like Maryann all roads lead to God and never to question marks or statements such as, “I don‘t know.”

But lets not lose sight of why people like Maryann “cite” people like Greene in cases like this. It is because the 2nd premise/unfounded-assertion of their cosmological argument has been challenged. That the universe had a beginning is not a given. That the universe as we know it began a finite span of time ago is, but that has nothing to do with what the universe was like before.

Infinitely hot dense quark-gluon plasma or cold dead infinitely large 3branes are two models that fit with what we do know of the expansion that ensued, and there are others, but-

@Maryann:

Where does God, your personal god, actually fit into any of this? The overused, but still relevant answer that I would give is, “Only in the gaps.” As in the gaps of knowledge.

You officially call yourself a Christian apologist, but do you understand that this means? That you start out with a belief or set of beliefs and that your purpose is to provide arguments in favor of these beliefs no matter what? Stand back, sit down, or meditate, but just consider this question yourself: Do I use an objective process in considering what is of intellectual value to me?

I don’t think that it is unfair to suggest this because I do it quite a bit, and would venture to say that many others here do also. I do it because I value my internal feeling of intellectual integrity and find it difficult if not impossible to lie to myself.