Comments by "Chef Chaudard" (@chefchaudard3580) on "Kalam Debate: @CapturingChristianity vs. @rationalityrules - Steve's Second Rebuttal" video.
-
2
-
1
-
@curiousguy978 I agree that, intuitiveley, if past is infinite, there is no "first cause", though we may discover that infinites don't work the way we think and that there is a "kind" of "first" or "last" in infinites (there are already with some infinites that tend to some limit).
However, I don't understand why you think past cannot be infinite? You can have a "now " and "here" even if time and space are infinite? 4887 is before 4888 and after 4886, and nowhere else, in the infinite of numbers. And some models have our space time universe infinite, with us being where we are, no problem.
Then, your paradox is not one: the reality is that our space/time IS finite and started with the Big Bang. We know nothing of the reality of "before" the Big Bang. We don't even know if "before the Big Bang" means something, if "time" existed at some point or what other dimensions may have existed.
Finally, no "first messenger" is required for an infinite past to be possible. I see no problem in having causes traced back infinitely and no "first cause". Every "step" being the consequences of the previous "step", ad infinitum, like every number is equal to the previous one + 1.
Infinites are counterintuitive, and basing a reasoning on intuition when speaking of physics looks suspiscious to me.
1
-
@curiousguy978 Titling your answer was a good idea.
Logically
I disagree with your "today seems to be the end of time...". Intuitiveley, we know there will be a tomorrow, and a day after. It has been that way for billions of years, we take it for granted, science also, and some models have time infinite in the future. Scientific method, based on observable facts from where models are derived, strongly disagree with you
Nothing says that past time "cannot ellapse". No scientific model or mathematical demonstration. Grim Reaper, or Grim Messenger, try to disprove infinites, based on the lack of a starting point and the impossibility of a first cause. But it does not prove infinite impossible if no first cause is required in the first place, or "first cause" is not related to a single "natural" moment. You'll have to demontrate that.
Secondly
You are conflating an infinite and physical rules. Time being infinite or not, rules are that we cannot jump in time, or swap moments (or I did not make myself clear, sorry).
Where your idea that an infinite, to exist, need all its elements to exist at one point comes from? Our scientific models are descriptive. If, one day, it is demonstrated that time is infinite in the future, then we'll not have to wait an eternity to declare it infinite.
And, as a side note, WE experience time as past, present and future, but nothing says that all moments don't exist outside of what we can experience.
Scientifically
I fully agree with you that we are talking of things we know very few about. The only issue is that, if I am happy to say that "we don't know, so far", some, like this CC guy RR is responding to, pretend to know what caused the Big Bang. For bad reasons. This is, after all, the reason why RR made his videos in the first place, and why we comment.
Rationally
Your chicken and egg is a poor analogy. Chicken evolved from animals we would not call chicken. Same for eggs. It proves exactly the opposite of what you want to say: in the chain of animals that led to the chicken, there is not an animal that was obviously not a chicken giving birth to what is obviously a chicken. We would have to arbitrary decide where, at some point, the father was not a chicken, and the son is. But, in reality, there would be very few differences between the father and the son. No more than for you with your father.
There is no "first chicken", there is only a line of animals, all slightly different from the previous one, that end up with what we call "a chicken". And, in fact, egg predate the chicken. Chicken ancestors, we would not call them chickens, were born from eggs.
So, maybe, like for the chicken, there is no "first cause", just causes after another, ruled by some unknown cosmical physical law. All turtles down. Or, as cause needs time, and time before the Big Bang may not have existed, no cause at all.
1
-
@curiousguy978 1 - "Your phrase “there ‘will be’ a tomorrow” confirms that tomorrow doesn’t yet exist so I would say by definition we have reached the end of time in the present. "
I demonstrated that: all scientific models, and our intuitition, shows that "now" is just a moment in the timeline. Everything shows that there will be a tomorrow and a day after. Are we sure? Yes, as sure as we can be. That's part of the presuppositions used in the scientific method, that time behaves the same way now as it will in the future and was in the past in our universe. Until it ceases to exist, eventually.
2 - "If you are saying time already exists in the future, the you’ll need to demonstrate that. "
No, I don't assert that. It is just a possibility you did not rule out.
3 -" If you are saying time existed before [the Big Bang], I’ll ask that you demonstrate that as" well.
I assert nothing: read my message again, time may have not existed "before" the "Big Bang". It is you, who assert that time can't be infinite, to demonstrate your point. My point is: we don't know, either time did not exist, or it existed, was infinite, or had a start... or something else. I would be happy enough if you admit that you don't know either.
4 - "Grimm messenger and reaper actually disprove causal infinities. "
No, they don't. GM and GR disprove the existence of a "first" in an infinite. I already granted that: it is the very definition of an infinite that there is no "start" or "end".
5 - "It’s pretty obvious that effects need causes so it makes perfect sense to say something outside the chain of cause and effect was the first cause."
It does not "make perfect sense". That's my point. I see no reason why there could not be a chain of causes with no "first cause", of moments without a "first moment". GR nor GM demonstrate that. Your "perfect sense" makes no sense when applied to infinites, or, at least, it is not enough to demonstrate that, as my intuition says the opposite.
I don't have to prove that. Again, I don't say that it is true, what I say is that you don't rule that out. Be aware that, by definition, there is no "first moment" in an infinite past time. There is no "first cause" either. So, you cannot disprove an infinite past through that, no more that tangent of 90° being infinite and having no actual value disproves the existence of right angles.
6 - "On the secondly part, you are swapping causal finitism for effect finitism..."
No. I disagree on the necessity of a "first cause", not on causes in general (for the sake of the argument). You have to demonstrate that a "first cause" is required.
Regarding the rest of the comments, I'll be very brief: "so either the universe sprang into existence from nothing by nothing and without a cause, or it sprang into existence from nothing by something with a cause. ".
False dichotomy. Physicits work on many other models, and there maybe a bunch of unknown reasons.
The rest will be addressed when you have demonstrated that a "first cause" is required, or gave up. And "it makes sense" is not an answer when talking of infinites. Mathematicians dedicated their lives on the subject, so the "perfect sense" of a layman, even as smart as you, is not sufficient.
1
-
@curiousguy978 I thank you also for the chat. It forced me to put in writings my thoughts, and make them (hopefully) understandable.
1 & 2 - I made my point clear here. For me, an infinite is an infinite, elapsed or not. We agree we disagree :-)
4 -I'm not sure I understand what you mean. If you take an infinity of dominos, you don't need a "first domino" to fall for the "second one" to fall. It's a nonsense. All dominos fall because of the previous one.
5 - There is something in the video that contradicts you : at 5:08 RR gives sources from Pruss telling when causal finitism is supported. One of them is 2) "when a segment of time is not infinitely divisible". This is more or less the case in our space/time universe, because of Planck's constant. But nothing says it was the case "before" the Big Bang if we assume time existed.
To simplify, if you imagine time made of an infinite number of moments, duration between every moment being infinitely short, you can go from -infinite to now in litteraly no time
So much for "It's logical to say that without beginnings or ends, infinities can't elapse, that past time by definition has elapsed, so past time can't be infinite. "
Your "alarm bell" rings immediately, if it makes sense :-), as an infinite amount of time has elapsed in an infinitely short time.
That is also the reply to [noticed you skipped over addressing elapsing time vs. elapsing infinities]. Sorry, I thought it was answered in the video.
6 - I already addressed that point: it is up to you to demonstrate your point. I make no claim, I just point out flaws (as RR in the video, incidently). If a competing hypothesis is as likely as yours, it means that you demonstrated nothing. As I still see no reason why "causes" can't go to infinity, and neither the GR or GM demonstrate that for ALL possible infinite times (see the video and my point above), you are left with at least one competing hypothesis. It does not make this hypothesis true, but I believe it to be sound. It means you have to find a demonstration that covers ALL kinds of infinites.
Rest -"It's a dichotomy because there is no third option. Believing the universe sprang from nothing and/or for no reason is one option. Believing it came from something and/or for some reason is the only other...".
What you said was "so either the universe sprang into existence from nothing by nothing and without a cause, or it sprang into existence from nothing by something with a cause." which is different. Maybe a typo. Whatever.
I propose "The Cosmos always existed, because "nothing" cannot exist. As the cosmos is all what was, is and will be, by definition, cosmos ever existed. There is no time, no dimension when/where the cosmos did not exist. Our space time universe is either the cosmos, and "before" the universe makes no sense, or it is born from some existing stuff and there not "from nothing".
1
-
@curiousguy978 1 - "can’t get to second, or third, etc, without having a first." We agree. And that was my point: there is no first, second or third in an infinity BY DEFINITION. GM and GR demonstrates that, which is no wonder as it is the very definition of an infinity ;-). It is functionally impossible, as RR put it, right from the start.
2 - " Agree to disagree if you think “you can go through [vast amounts] of time in literally no time”. You would have to prove that assertion.
Easy: If time between every moment that composes timeline = 0, then time between moment T0 and moment Tn = 0*n = 0
This is not true in our space time universe, because time cannot be divided infinitely, down to 0, but maybe valid, in theory, in what was "before" our universe.
3 -"In the video, RR specifically says infinities can’t elapse,..." [Citation needed]
4 - "Hiding behind some strategy to make a bunch of unfounded claims calling out what you deem are flaws and pretending the “other guy” is the only person who has to support their position is intellectually dishonest and in any case doesn’t move anyone closer to the truth. "
There may be a misunderstanding here, though I intended to clarify it in a previous answer you may have overlooked: I don't pretend to have the truth, unlike Cameron who pretends that our universe can only come from one cause, a God, using various fallacies.
I don't know where the universe comes from. WE DON'T KNOW! NOBODY KNOWS! If someone pretends to know, he lies! If you agree with that, then we can stop there, leave them for what there are and seek for the truth, as you put it.
5 - "Lastly you can “make the claim” and propose “the claim” that the cosmos is eternal and “the claim” that it’s impossible for nothing to exist ,...
Are not you a bit disigenuous there? In your own words "here 'could' be a reason currently unknown, granted, but something (or some reason) vs. nothing (or no reason) is not a false dichotomy."
You admitted there could be an unknown reason, but insits there could be only 2 other alternatives, from nothing, from something.
I proposed another option: no creation. Which clearly makes your initial choices between 2 options a false dichotomy, as we have currently 4 of them (and potentially many more).
I have clearly proven my point here: your two only options IS a false dichotomy.
6 - " ... but you would need to demonstrate how that’s more likely than all the scientific discoveries we have to date saying otherwise (thermodynamics, cosmological study, relativity, waves, expansion, etc)."
No, no scientific discovery says otherwise. Again, if we have some models WE DON'T KNOW where the universe comes from. We don't even know if that question makes sense.
And I really don't think you can backup your claim here. Our knowledge is limited to our space time universe. Our physics simply collapses at the time of the Big Bang and is of no help to understand what was "before" it.
1
-
@curiousguy978 I enjoy our chat, really. It makes me try to understand how you can come to some conclusions in good faith (no pun intended). And I really enjoy challenging you :-D.
1 - "You continue to claim not first but offer nothing to say how that's possible other than you see no reason to doubt infinite causal relationships."
How is that possible that there is no "first"? I think I made my point clear: there is no first BY DEFINITION in the GM or GR argument, it is an infinity! This is one of the premises, and the purpose of the arguments is precisely to DEMONSTRATE that a "first" IS REQUIRED! Which they failed to do. Until falsified, the possibility of an infinite past holds.
2 - "Thanks for clarifying what you meant on traversing time. I thought you were talking about the known universe, as why I was confused. Time = 0 being just an idea that might be true in the unknown universe, Ok sure, make up anything you like. 1 might = 2 in the unknown universe, there might be no first cause because we live in the Matrix, etc., and you can keep going with what could be possible constrained by no laws of logic or science, so long as you stand behind the idea that only others need demonstrate validity for their statements and your role is to point out what you think are flaws. It ends up being a waste of everyone's time though."
You are not a scientist, I bet? In science, when a model is proposed, everybody is supposed to challenge it. That's how science work, it is not "a waste of everyone's time", despite what you think. It is an important part of the process.
And you don't have to hypothize and demonstrate a competing model to falsify the one proposed. You just have to demonstrate that it does not hold water.
And no, laws of logic and science don't disprove me on the subject. Just you.
3- "I'm not savvy enough to put the link, but 10:29 I think is the moment, but at 10:15 his thought. I don't consider RR an authority at all mind you, but that's where he states infinities can't elapse and that it's a functional impossibility."
If your point is to say that the future has not elapsed, and will never, I wholeheartedly grant you that. If you have a point to make from that, please proceed, and go for your demonstration.
However, that's not what RR says: he means that, one of the premise of the GM argument is a functional impossibility because each GM cannot know his number IN ADVANCE. How could the GM of this year know how many GMs there will be after him? How could you know your number in the "curious guy" lineage? How many children, grand children, grand grand children will you have? And it is even worst if future is infinite! RR solves the issue by numbering down, from 1, today, down to infinite past.
4 - "So until all the stuff in the universe existed, none of the stuff in the universe existed"
If you talk of our space time universe, you don't know that. Maybe energy, time or something else existed. You need to demonstrate that before you go for your argument...
If you talk of the Cosmos (all what was, is, will be) our space time universe would be part of, you need to demonstrate first that it was created.
And we are back at the start. Try again!
5 - "If the universe is not caused then we have to figure out how effects happen without causes, and how something 'springs' from nothing, both of which is very difficult."
But possible, according to quantum physicists, some particles don't need a "cause" to pop into existence. And the beauty of the thing is that they can demonstrate that... no cause is required!
I'll leave aside your rambling about atheists not believing in creation by a God. Atheism has nothing to do with that. Either your arguments hold water, either they don't. And, so far, they don't. There are just arguments from personal incredulity, and a lack of knowledge on the subject. So, please, leave aside your faith and preconceived ideas, and try to understand what is told to you. You'll learn some things, as I learn some from you. So, back to the Grim Reaper, Grim Messenger or Grim Whatever You Want. Please.
1
-
1