Jonesy

I see that some have already grasped, unlike other replies to my topic, "the fact that if the universe is expanding then it cannot be infinite" - so maybe we should concentrate on trying to persuade some others to the fact that "expansion of the universe rules out it being infinite". This is a fact.

The amazing thing, as I have already said, starts when you start thinking about "what caused this universe"? For you have to admit and let's follow some logic here: (and I think this debate should be interesting - it continues the one I started earlier on this Philosophy forum):

1. Universe expands

2. Therefore there was an initiation to the expansion.

3. An expansion cannot happen without a causing impetus.

4. What is the causing impetus for the explosion called the Big Bang?

5. The Universe is COMPLEX.

6. The universe is ORDERED, even if we cannot perceive this order in many instances.

7. What can be a causing impetus to the Big Bang such that it produces a COMPLEX and ORDERED universe?

8. The chances of this happening by chance are ZERO. (eg. you don't see a complex human being suddenly creating itself at the corner pizza shop, in front of everyone, by 'chance')

9. if the universe was not 'created', we are implying that it is the only thing that was not created, while everything in it (after the initial Big Bang) actually follows a cause-and-effect pattern.

10. My logic says that if everything in the Universe, after its creation, follows a cause and effect pattern of being made (even if we cannot see 'the causes' often), then the act of this universe being created must also result from a cause-and-effect action.

11. Effect: big Bang, from a singularity

12. Cause: debatable, although logic suggests 'intelligence' rather than chance (as I already mentioned above)

13. Logic: if the universe began with an explosion, then, LIKE FOR ANY OTHER EXPLOSION - everything part of the explosion AFTER the initial moment of the explosion occurring - is already PREDICTABLE - from the NECESSARY initial conditions that MUST HAVE LOGICALLY BEEN THERE for the explosion to be made possible in the first place.

14. Logically, then, if everything after the Big Bang must have been predictable (since it was an explosion) then this NECESSITATES "a design" - otherwise you could not have an explosion.

15. No design, or no 'cause and effect' pattern - no explosion possible. This is a very powerful statement, because it PROVES, at least logically, that THE EXPLOSION called Big Bang must have been DESIGNED - otherwise you could not get the necessary initial conditions that set out what the explosion will be like.

16. How can there be "complex initial conditions" without being designed? Complexity does not logically result from randomness. this would not make logical sense (also physical sense)

17. Many people would say "simple, these initial conditions were 'random and unpredictable'". WRONG. If they were random and unpredictable, then there is no guarrantee that a Big bang would occur and THERE IS NO guarrantee that an explosion would occur at all!!!!!

18. Hence, to guarrantee the Big Bang happening, and, since it's an explosion with 'initial conditions' - then it must have, logically, been a case of 'Intelligent Design' - it is impossible to have an explosion without 'causing factors' - and you cannot have causing factors which cause an orderly universe without these being designed. Again, you cannot have order from randomness - the chances are ZERO - as we increase in complexity, chances of this complexity being as due to a radndom process decrease - to ZERO for the most complex event that is clearly the Big Bang.

19. And here's where i give you the pleasure of reading a masterpiece on more or less 'why did the
big Bang happen', and it's here:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a> (pdf file with a password "free")

And a note to the administrators: as I have promised, I'm not pushing anything from my previous posts, merely including a link to a piece of writing relevant to my argumentation above.

(it is a coincidence that this link DID appear in my previous posts as well as this one here)

FINAL note: the above link is for those who are interested; but here, we should try to debate just the logical conclusion (that I hold) that the big bang, as a 'complex explosion' that led to 'order' must have been the result of 'created impetus' and not a 'random impetus' - that is the conclusion of my argumentation in a nutshell.

Rational Ag

We don't know if the universe is infinite or finite. We only know about the part of the universe we can see and detect with our current technology. We have no idea what rests beyond the bounds of our current technology. The universe COULD be finite, and expanding. The universe could ALSO be infinite, and our portion of it could be expanding.

It does currently look like our universe is expanding, which would mean a finite amount of matter/energy in the universe. However, we can't dismiss the possibility that our detectable universe is part of a greater infinite universe.

1. Universe expands

Based on current evidence, granted.

2. Therefore there was an initiation to the expansion.

Granted.

3. An expansion cannot happen without a causing impetus.

Granted, but the nature of such impetus is indeterminate. It could be internal or external.

4. What is the causing impetus for the explosion called the Big Bang?

A question in a logical argument? I will just assume you have named your impetus. Neat.

5. The Universe is COMPLEX.

If you are saying we (as a human race) don't fully understand it, I agree. Complex is a relative term. While engine schematics are complex for some, they are relatively uncomplicated for others. I would say that it's possible that the universe won't always be complex to the human race.

6. The universe is ORDERED, even if we cannot perceive this order in many instances.

Not granted. Define order, then show evidence. Order is a subjective/relative term, just like complex is.

7. What can be a causing impetus to the Big Bang such that it produces a COMPLEX and ORDERED universe?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? I would hesitate to say there are hundreds of theories, everything from gawd to space aliens to naturalistic interactions we don't understand yet.

8. The chances of this happening by chance are ZERO. (eg. you don't see a complex human being suddenly creating itself at the corner pizza shop, in front of everyone, by 'chance')

I love statistics. Please show your work. Partial credit will not be granted.

You apparently are convinced by the "watch found in the forest" argument. May I suggest <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393315703/qid=1027619168/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-0788606-0465746" target="_blank">The Blind Watchmaker</a> by Richard Dawkins.

9. if the universe was not 'created', we are implying that it is the only thing that was not created, while everything in it (after the initial Big Bang) actually follows a cause-and-effect pattern.

Not really. We are implying that the universe was not 'created'. There are plenty of other things in the universe that were not 'created'. It's possible that you are implying 'causation' when you say 'creation'. You seem stuck on the word 'created'.

10. My logic says that if everything in the Universe, after its creation, follows a cause and effect pattern of being made (even if we cannot see 'the causes' often), then the act of this universe being created must also result from a cause-and-effect action.

I'm afraid you've lost me. Your logic does not follow. Please explain how you can infer that the universe had to have a cause.

Everything you see around you (the universe, made of matter/energy) suggests a cause/effect relationship, but that does little to explain the nature of matter and energy. The cause/effect relationship rests within a universe made up of matter and energy, thus any causes and effects you see are a result of matter and energy within said universe. Your observations are all based upon the cause and effect of matter and energy reacting within that frame of reference, and cannot be used to speculate on things outside that frame of reference.

I'm sorry, but the theories you use to explain the nature of the universe in which we live cannot be applied to the origin of that reference point.

11. Effect: big Bang, from a singularity

Please show your impetus had to be a singularity.

12. Cause: debatable, although logic suggests 'intelligence' rather than chance (as I already mentioned above)

Logic does not suggest intelligence, you do. Please show your work and show how you think intelligence was involved.

13. Logic: if the universe began with an explosion, then, LIKE FOR ANY OTHER EXPLOSION - everything part of the explosion AFTER the initial moment of the explosion occurring - is already PREDICTABLE - from the NECESSARY initial conditions that MUST HAVE LOGICALLY BEEN THERE for the explosion to be made possible in the first place.

You like the word logic, but you do not apparently seem to grasp the concept.

Until now, you have not talked about an explosion, so I will have to assume you mean your named impetus.

You in no way have shown anything regarding the predictability of occurrences after the impetus.

You have not stated any necessary initial conditions.

Your 'logic' does not follow.

14. Logically, then, if everything after the Big Bang must have been predictable (since it was an explosion) then this NECESSITATES "a design" - otherwise you could not have an explosion.

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

You have not mentioned a design, or the criteria for detecting such a design, until now. Nor have you shown that anything must be predictable, or that predictability has anything to do with an impetus. Please explain to me how an impetus had to have been predictable (since we don't know anything about the history of the universe before said impetus), how that necessitates a design, and how those things are required for such an impetus.

15. No design, or no 'cause and effect' pattern - no explosion possible. This is a very powerful statement, because it PROVES, at least logically, that THE EXPLOSION called Big Bang must have been DESIGNED - otherwise you could not get the necessary initial conditions that set out what the explosion will be like.

See above. You have not shown any of the statements you are making to be true.

16. How can there be "complex initial conditions" without being designed? Complexity does not logically result from randomness. this would not make logical sense (also physical sense)

So, you don't understand the universe. Congratulations, I don't either.

Please show me what complex initial conditions means, what they are, why they are required, and how they affect the universe as we know it. Please show how you know these things.

Please show conclusively how 'complexity' cannot result from 'randomness'.

17. Many people would say "simple, these initial conditions were 'random and unpredictable'". WRONG. If they were random and unpredictable, then there is no guarrantee that a Big bang would occur and THERE IS NO guarrantee that an explosion would occur at all!!!!!

You are talking about probability after-the-fact. That's like a lottery winner saying "I couldn't have won the lottery". Although improbable, he did win. It's useless to talk about the probability of an event after it has happened, because it did happen. The probability of an event that has already happened is 1.

18. Hence, to guarrantee the Big Bang happening, and, since it's an explosion with 'initial conditions' - then it must have, logically, been a case of 'Intelligent Design' - it is impossible to have an explosion without 'causing factors' - and you cannot have causing factors which cause an orderly universe without these being designed. Again, you cannot have order from randomness - the chances are ZERO - as we increase in complexity, chances of this complexity being as due to a radndom process decrease - to ZERO for the most complex event that is clearly the Big Bang.

Typing more and repeating yourself doesn't make your logic any more convincing. The points you make in the above statement are highly problematic and have already been addressed.

19. And here's where i give you the pleasure of reading a masterpiece on more or less 'why did the
big Bang happen', and it's here:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/freedom.zip</a> (pdf file with a password "free")

And a note to the administrators: as I have promised, I'm not pushing anything from my previous posts, merely including a link to a piece of writing relevant to my argumentation above.

(it is a coincidence that this link DID appear in my previous posts as well as this one here)

FINAL note: the above link is for those who are interested; but here, we should try to debate just the logical conclusion (that I hold) that the big bang, as a 'complex explosion' that led to 'order' must have been the result of 'created impetus' and not a 'random impetus' - that is the conclusion of my argumentation in a nutshell.

No thanks. Nice shirt though, very stylish.

Got any foil hats to match it?

-Rational Ag

[Edited for formatting and spelling]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

WJ

The!

Great post! Another thorn in the side for the atheist. I'm really starting to like logical necessity. Afterall, it is logical!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Writer@Large

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Sigh. You can take the idiot out of the cult, but you can't take the cult out of the idiot ...

--W@L

Rational Ag

How exactly is the initial post a thorn in the side of an atheist?

I'm kind of disappointed in you, WJ. I thought you considered yourself a master of the rules of logic. The initial post of this thread is borderline one of the worst pieces of deductive logic I have seen, and yet you tout it as a masterpiece.

I used to think you were a very philosophical logician, now it looks like you don't have any grasp on logical reasoning in the least. At least I don’t have to bother reading any more of your posts, since you obviously have no grasp.

-Rational Ag

John Page

I suggest you change this to "the Universe appears to expand"

NialScorva

And you can buy the magic tie-dyed shirt of GOOD LOGIC +5 on that site too.

Thiaoouba, I'm so sick of reading your posts, and by posting this thread, you are forcing me to read it. Be *very* careful, you're on my short list of people deserving zero-tolerance rules enforcement.

Liquidrage

Anyone want to play a game of "Who created the intelligent designer?"

Shadowy Man

Wrong. No need to continue.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Shadowy Man ]</p>

Kharakov

Thiaoouba-

Check out this site and see how it applies to your interactions with people:

<a href="http://www.omnimag.com/archives/mind_brain/cult/" target="_blank">http://www.omnimag.com/archives/mind_brain/cult/</a>

Take the test, however make sure you have a thorough understanding of every question and answer all questions honestly because otherwise you are in danger of messing up the results of the analysis.

-k