Quote from: Cogito

When you say that "creation" doesn't include the things designed by man, what do you mean? It seems odd to believe both that God created all things, yet that some of those things, that Man later reshaped, are no longer a part of creation.

I think it quite obvious that humankind's later designs are not to be included in the "creation" used for the purposes of the argument. However, what they were designed from should be included--this is equally obvious.

Does that about cover it, Maj?

Precisely.  

Also, it's like I said earlier in another thread.  At its initial point of existence, everything in this world/universe(excluding God) was created and bore design.  That was corrupted.  Now we have things that bare witness to the design, but not everything that exists was specifically designed/created by God.  I really can't divorce myself from that.  I'm not terribly interested in arguing a point I don't believe.  I don't believe that all things in existence are designed by God.  That's absurd.  I do believe that we can find the elements of God's design in all physical things.  When you get into spiritual things, like evil, I do not believe that God's design exists in it at all.  

Cog, you equate man's designs with the designs of God.  Man's designs are only a faint shadow.

That is not the question. I'm talking about the universe as a whole, just as you initially did in your own... argument... and I certainly did in my argument in regards to the frame of reference Z.

You and I are incapable of stepping outside the universe and regarding the universe as a whole; thus, we can know nothing about the universe qua universe. We can know only about particular things IN the universe.

Further, in this instance to attribute qualities or traits that the things which compose the universe possess to the universe as a whole is not possible.

For example, just because every atom which makes up a particular human's body is invisible to the naked eye does not mean that that particular human is invisible. This is similar to your argument.

You argue, "Because all things in the universe are designed (created), the universe itself must have been designed (created), as well." Such an argument, however, commits the fallacy of composition.

And you're mistaken about my framing the argument in terms of the universe as a whole. I wrote only about "All the things in the universe." I never wrote about the universe as a whole.

"You and I are incapable of stepping outside the universe and regarding the universe as a whole; thus, we can know nothing about the universe qua universe. We can know only about particular things IN the universe."

So, multiverse theory, as studied by scientists, is a waste of time?

I don't get the connection. Are you saying that some people believe that we can step outside of this universe and observe it as a whole?

Are you saying that some people believe that we can observe other particular things outside the universe?

Are you talking about the multiverse hypothesis? Are you talking about the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? What specifically do you refer to when you write "multiverse theory"?

Perhaps if you explain what you mean by "mulitverse theory," I'll understand.

It's pretty well accepted in physics that the universe extends infinitely in all directions but I, unlike most Christian sources, can certainly accept the possibility that other universes exist. I only deny that we can know anything about them.

"You argue, "Because all things in the universe are designed (created), the universe itself must have been designed (created), as well." Such an argument, however, commits the fallacy of composition."

Did the universe have a beginning, Cog?

If by "beginning" you mean a "beginning in time," then, no, it did not. If you do not mean a beginning in time, then what do you mean by "beginning"?

Current theory says that the universe began to expand at the Big Bang (and is still expanding today) but it says nothing about what the universe was doing prior to that.

You are saying we can know nothing about anything outside our universe (setting aside your definition of universe as everything that exists). The various multiverse theories, hypotheses, interpretations, etc. suggest otherwise. In other threads, you place a high value on what scientists have to say. Are you now suggesting that you know more than them?

I think you're hijacking sntjohnny's thread, but that's OK. All threads evolve. :)

First, on what grounds do you set aside my definition that the universe is "everything that exists anywhere"? Again, in physics it is pretty well established belief that the universe extends in all directions infinitely.

Second, if you believe that any one of the various multiverse hypotheses suggest that we can know something about a reality which may exist outside this universe, then you haven't read those theories except perhaps as they've been expounded inside a science fiction novel.

You know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory as those terms are used in science and you know that they are not even roughly synonymous. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, just to pick one multiverse hypothesis, is not established science. The theory of the modern synthesis is.

"Are you saying that some people believe that we can observe other particular things outside the universe?"

Did I say that?

Yes, you implied it. How else can we "know" something about a reality outside the universe if we cannot observe it in a scientific sense?

We can only know that about reality which we can experience.

I was thinking more along the lines of M-Theory, but there are quite a few others. link

From your link: A multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of physical reality.

Hypothetical??? That sentence expresses my points concisely: One, no multiverse hypothesis is an established part of science. Two, "all of reality" is what I call the universe.

We're not talking absolutist religion here, Doc. To further its quest to know more about reality, science hypothesizes and theorizes (in the speculative sense) all the time. This doesn't mean that every one of those hypotheses will become an established scientific theory along the lines of evolution or relativity, though. Most of them do not.

"I, unlike most Christian sources, can certainly accept the possibility that other universes exist. I only deny that we can know anything about them."

Here you go assuming again, Cog. You must have spent a great deal of time studying Christianity. I'm a Christian and I don't see any problem with having multiple universes.

Saying that you are a Christian and that you believe p, does nothing to negate the claim that MOST Christians do not believe p. It can only negate the claim that ALL Christians believe p -- and of course that was not my claim.

It's interesting that you now say current theory says nothing about the universe before the Big Bang. I'm going to so a quick search, but I seem to recall you saying that we could know about the initial conditions of the universe.

Wow. A search! And I thought I had a lot of time on my hands. Be sure and report your findings back here when you return.

Anyone who says that the initial conditions of the universe are known misspeaks. What he or she intends to say is that the conditions of the universe shortly after the Big Bang are known. Trust me on this. I know.

What I meant, Cog, is the universe eternal?

I believe that it's extremely unlikely (perhaps impossible) that we can know that.

If you find 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' convincing then you probably believe that the universe is eternal. Personally, since 'ex nihilo.  . . ' is not a logical truth, I can't see how it applies to a speculative realm that lies on the other side of the Big Bang. This is why, to me, such a question's answer is unknowable.

Quote from: TheDoctor

You are saying we can know nothing about anything outside our universe (setting aside your definition of universe as everything that exists). The various multiverse theories, hypotheses, interpretations, etc. suggest otherwise. In other threads, you place a high value on what scientists have to say. Are you now suggesting that you know more than them?

I think you're hijacking sntjohnny's thread, but that's OK. All threads evolve. :)

First, on what grounds do you set aside my definition that the universe is "everything that exists anywhere"? Again, in physics it is pretty well established belief that the universe extends in all directions infinitely.

Second, if you believe that any one of the various multiverse hypotheses suggest that we can know something about a reality which may exist outside this universe, then you haven't read those theories except perhaps as they've been expounded inside a science fiction novel.

Shrug.  Again, you assume too much, Cog.

You know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory as those terms are used in science and you know that they are not even roughly synonymous. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, just to pick one multiverse hypothesis, is not established science. The theory of the modern synthesis is.

I would hope I know the difference.  I suppose you noted that I specifically cited M-Theory (a theory and not a hypothosis).

Quote

"Are you saying that some people believe that we can observe other particular things outside the universe?"

Did I say that?

Yes, you implied it. How else can we "know" something about a reality outside the universe if we cannot observe it in a scientific sense?

We can only know that about reality which we can experience.

But in what ways can we experience that reality?  Does it have to be a direct experience?

Quote

I was thinking more along the lines of M-Theory, but there are quite a few others. link

From your link: A multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of physical reality.

Hypothetical??? That sentence expresses my points concisely: One, no multiverse hypothesis is an established part of science. Two, "all of reality" is what I call the universe.

Eh, technically ALL of science is hypothetical.  Obviously no multiverse theory is an established part of science (whatever that really means) because these theories/hypotheses, etc. are on the cutting edge of research.  And I've expressed misgivings about your "definition" of "universe" from the beginning.  I guess, according to your definition, we could experience that which I would call another universe and that "space" between universes as well.

We're not talking absolutist religion here, Doc. To further its quest to know more about reality, science hypothesizes and theorizes (in the speculative sense) all the time. This doesn't mean that every one of those hypotheses will become an established scientific theory along the lines of evolution or relativity, though. Most of them do not.

Thanks, Cog, for the science lesson.  I really didn't need it, though.  I wonder at your continued use of the phrase "established scientific theory."  Are you suggesting that these theories are somehow less able to be shown incorrect?

"I, unlike most Christian sources, can certainly accept the possibility that other universes exist. I only deny that we can know anything about them."

Here you go assuming again, Cog. You must have spent a great deal of time studying Christianity. I'm a Christian and I don't see any problem with having multiple universes.

Saying that you are a Christian and that you believe p, does nothing to negate the claim that MOST Christians do not believe p. It can only negate the claim that ALL Christians believe p -- and of course that was not my claim.[/quote]

You're right, my statement doesn't negate your claim in any way.  I was merely pointing out your assumption and apparent superior knowledge of Christianity.  I'd ask for your source, but we all saw how forthcoming you were with your source about the percentage of Europe's Jews who were killed in the Holocaust.  I find it increasingly curious that you can comment on the beliefs of Christians with impunity yet no one else may comment in a similar fashion on science.  

Quote

It's interesting that you now say current theory says nothing about the universe before the Big Bang. I'm going to so a quick search, but I seem to recall you saying that we could know about the initial conditions of the universe.

Wow. A search! And I thought I had a lot of time on my hands. Be sure and report your findings back here when you return.

Anyone who says that the initial conditions of the universe are known misspeaks. What he or she intends to say is that the conditions of the universe shortly after the Big Bang are known. Trust me on this. I know.

Why should I trust you?  How do you know?  Are you Cop?

Quote

What I meant, Cog, is the universe eternal?

I believe that it's extremely unlikely (perhaps impossible) that we can know that.

If you find 'ex nihilo, nihil fit' convincing then you probably believe that the universe is eternal. Personally, since 'ex nihilo.  . . ' is not a logical truth, I can't see how it applies to a speculative realm that lies on the other side of the Big Bang. This is why, to me, such a question's answer is unknowable.

Nice cop-out.

Quote from: TheDoctor

Nice cop-out.

So you believe that every question is answerable?

Ah, blind, foolish optimism.

I, too, once believed every question had a discoverable answer. . .

but then I turned ten.  

Your question is like the one that Stephen Hawking poses, What lies ten miles north of the North Pole?

I believe that those questions which do not represent logical impossibilities are answerable in that they have the potential to be answered.  Must be the scientist in me.

If time began coincidentally with the Big Bang, then the question what preceded the Big Bang in time has no meaning. The question implies no logical contradiction but the question is nonsense.

It's like asking, What lies beyond infinite space?

[Sorry, sntjohnny, but it looks as if TheDoctor has totally hijacked your thread.   ]