Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I don't have to read Darwin or any other evolutionist to understand that logically atheistic materialism/naturalism violates laws of logic.

Can you prove that?

[Actor]

In the last few days I have learned of a new hypothesis in astrophysics which potentially might answer the question “what came before the big bang?” The hypothesis is the result of the discovery of dark matter, dark energy and what seems to be a super massive black hole at the center of every galaxy.

The present predominant theory, that the universe will end with a “heat death”, may not be correct. The new hypothesis speculates that the super massive black hole at the center of each galaxy will eventually draw the entire galaxy into it leaving only the super massive black hole. Eventually this will happen to every galaxy in the universe leaving a universe consisting only of super massive black holes. These super massive black holes will then begin feed upon each other until finally only one super super massive black hole remains. Under the enormous gravity this blank will collapse into a singularity. General relativity suggests that such a black hole could be one end of a worm hole and the other end could be a white hole, i.e., a big bang. Thus the universe will collapse into a worm hole and emerge at the other end as a big bang and the whole process will repeat. This process will gone on, and will have been going on, forever.

I can think of ways to falsify this hypothesis but first we need to learn more about dark matter and dark energy.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Can you prove that?

I have often and you know it. Whether you posit a finite or infinite universe, you run right into the brick wall of Law of the Logic -- one in the former case, two in the latter.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In the last few days I have learned of a new hypothesis in astrophysics which potentially might answer the question “what came before the big bang?” The hypothesis is the result of the discovery of dark matter, dark energy and what seems to be a super massive black hole at the center of every galaxy.

The present predominant theory, that the universe will end with a “heat death”, may not be correct. The new hypothesis speculates that the super massive black hole at the center of each galaxy will eventually draw the entire galaxy into it leaving only the super massive black hole. Eventually this will happen to every galaxy in the universe leaving a universe consisting only of super massive black holes. These super massive black holes will then begin feed upon each other until finally only one super super massive black hole remains. Under the enormous gravity this blank will collapse into a singularity. General relativity suggests that such a black hole could be one end of a worm hole and the other end could be a white hole, i.e., a big bang. Thus the universe will collapse into a worm hole and emerge at the other end as a big bang and the whole process will repeat. This process will gone on, and will have been going on, forever.

I can think of ways to falsify this hypothesis but first we need to learn more about dark matter and dark energy.

Be sure to keep us all posted, will ya?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Be sure to keep us all posted, will ya?

I'll do that. Meanwhile there is no longer a scientific consensus that the universe had a beginning. Ditto the claim that the universe was created out of nothing. Gamow's oscillating universe theory is alive and well.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have often and you know it. Whether you posit a finite or infinite universe, you run right into the brick wall of Law of the Logic -- one in the former case, two in the latter.

Going back to Religion I what was your first post wherein you posited this theory?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Going back to Religion I what was your first post wherein you posited this theory?

It's not a theory. Theories don't prove violations of law of logic. Laws of logic are iron clad. Either there is a violation or there isn't.

You know fully well that in atheistic Naturalism/Materialism a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end -- violates the Law of Noncontradiction. And in the same kind of worldview, an eternal universe -- a universe that is inherently self-existing, timeless, having no beginning or end -- violates the Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction. Therefore, atheistic Naturalism/Materialism will always be a non-starter for me because this worldviewhas NO legs, logically speaking. The two laws above have chopped both of them off before either scenario left the box. There is absolutely no need for me to wade through gazillions of pages of "scientific" minutiae that attempt to prove either scenario since they're both illogical (self-defeating) views.

We've have been down this road many times.

Have a great evening.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Actor

Thus the universe will collapse into a worm hole and emerge at the other end as a big bang and the whole process will repeat. This process will gone on, and will have been going on, forever.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche predicted that too using different reasoning.
He believed "God is dead!"
If I understand him correctly:
The Universe will keep eternally repeating itself.
We're all doomed to live our lives over and over and over.....
Geez, I don't want to make the same mistakes again and again.
That would be Hell too.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche predicted that too using different reasoning.
He believed "God is dead!"
If I understand him correctly:
The Universe will keep eternally repeating itself.
We're all doomed to live our lives over and over and over.....
Geez, I don't want to make the same mistakes again and again.
That would be Hell too.

You would not remember having made them before. Each time would be a new experience.

Time could be cyclical. Just as circling the earth will bring you back to the exact same latitude and longitude there could be a time in the distant future which is the exact same time as the present moment.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

You know fully well that in atheistic Naturalism/Materialism a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end -- violates the Law of Non-contradiction.

I know no such thing.

Let's begin with the Law of Non-Contradiction :

law of non-contradiction : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.


Now let's consider this statement :

"a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end -- violates the Law of Non-contradiction."

This is actually two statements, the first being a definition :

Definition : finite universe : a universe that had a beginning and will have an end.

... and then the statement itself :

Statement : A finite universe cannot exist.

You claim that this statement violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (and so must be false). But the Law of Non-Contradiction refers to two statements. ("statements" is plural and "both" implies two). Since there is only one statement there is no second statement to contradict. A single statement cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction no matter what it says.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Actor

You would not remember having made them before. Each time would be a new experience.

This reply by you to GF suggests you believe in reincarnation?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Light

This reply by you to GF suggests you believe in reincarnation?

Not in the religious sense. What I described is George Gamow's oscillating universe model in which both time and space are closed.

If you were to travel 100,000 miles along the equator you would pass Mt. Kilimanjaro four times. If you believed the earth to be flat and infinitely large then you would believe that you had passed four different mountains which looked alike. Since we know that the earth is spherical and finite we also know that there is only one Mt. Kilimanjaro. In Gamow's model time also goes in a circle, i.e., go far enough into the future (trillions of years) and you arrive in the past. Time may be cyclical but you live only one lifetime. Just as there is only one Mt. Kilimanjaro you get only one life. This is not reincarnation in the religious sense.

Gamow's in one of many different cosmological models. Right now there is not enough data for me to point to any one particular model and say "this is the correct one."

If Gamow's model is correct, except that time is not cyclical, then each repetition of the big bank, ultimate collapse, repeat cycle is probably unique. The formation of the earth, the sun, the solar system, even the Milky Way galaxy are probably one time in eternity events.

[Light]

Gamow was also an atheist as you are.

Since you take the scientific approach, how do you reconcile that the universe was created by the "Big Bang theory" that Gamow popularized, and the fact that the Big Bang could not have created itself. That there had to be a creator for the Big Bang to exist in the first place. That creator could be God or another scientific force but eventually the creator of the creators will be God.

Because "Nothing” cannot compress and explode, and create "Everything". Which implies there was "Something" causing "compression" and the "Nothing" that was compressed was obviously Something.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I know no such thing.

Let's begin with the Law of Non-Contradiction :

law of non-contradiction : contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.


Now let's consider this statement :

"a finite universe -- a universe that had a beginning and will have an end -- violates the Law of Non-contradiction."

This is actually two statements, the first being a definition :

Definition : finite universe : a universe that had a beginning and will have an end.

... and then the statement itself :

Statement : A finite universe cannot exist.

You claim that this statement violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (and so must be false). But the Law of Non-Contradiction refers to two statements. ("statements" is plural and "both" implies two). Since there is only one statement there is no second statement to contradict. A single statement cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction no matter what it says.

First of all, two statements are not necessary for a contradiction. If someone were say, for example:

There is no such thing as absolute truth, it would be IMPLICITLY understood that this is an inherently contradictory (or self-refuting statement because the statement above would have to include the "truth" of the statement itself! If the person making the statement insists that his statement is absolutely true, then he contradicted himself. On the other hand, if he says his statement itself is not absolutely true, then it's cognitive gibberish. Pick your poison.

Moreover, the formal definition of the Law goes along these lines: A thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time in the same sense (or in the same relationship). Or a thing cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

These kinds of statements don't restrict the number of statements a person can make to formulate his religion or philosophy or worldview. And this is precisely the case with atheistic naturalism that postulates a finite universe because in this philosophy or worldview, it's implicitly understood that only a natural cause could account for the existence of the universe, as opposed to an transcendent, supernatural cause. It is understood that the cause of the existence of the universe is to be found only within the universe itself. And it's right here that the violation of the Law of Noncontradiction occurs! In order for a non-existent entity to cause itself, it must first exist! In other words, the cause existed and did not exist at the same time and in the same sense!.

And let's be very honest and frank here -- some scientists understand well this nasty dilemma. They understand that their worldview is inherently self-defeating which is precisely why some of them are even willing to completely go off the charts to support their insanity by postulating that the finite universe had no cause! How they account for the existence of the universe is with NOTHING. NOTHING "caused" the universe. From Nothing comes Something. Pure magic, Dr. Watson..

[Actor]

Originally Posted by Light

Gamow was also an atheist as you are.

Since you take the scientific approach, how do you reconcile that the universe was created by the "Big Bang theory" that Gamow popularized, and the fact that the Big Bang could not have created itself. That there had to be a creator for the Big Bang to exist in the first place. That creator could be God or another scientific force but eventually the creator of the creators will be God.

Because "Nothing” cannot compress and explode, and create "Everything". Which implies there was "Something" causing "compression" and the "Nothing" that was compressed was obviously Something.

Did you read #4637? If so then read it again? Also #4640, 4644 and 4647.