Forums

Reasons for Joy; In Gentleness, and Respect.

Profile of lucious

Show Posts

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lucious

1
Political Threads / Re: Biden is very corrupt
« on: Today at 06:47:40 am »

I swear the GOP and the alt-right are the very archetype of Hitchcock's gaslighting. They accuse everyone of doing what they get caught doing on the regular.


An example from the Left...

(A) Falsely accuse Donald Trump of not being willing to condemn white supremacy (he has condemned it multiple times).

(B) Fail to condemn antifa, as we witnessed from Biden recently.



I believe Trump is lying when he says this. He has a lengthy history of racist and prejudicial remarks against people of colour. It's easier to believe he is saying this under pressure because he feels its necessary for his optics, not because he truly believes white supremacy and racism should be denounced.

2
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Penrose and WLC discuss cosmology.
« on: October 19, 2020, 07:44:37 am »
They argue what I just did, that the "aeons" are actually separate in kind space-times once you lost the reductive concept of time (that time depends on there being physical material in the universe with which one can build a clock) you end up with a multiverse scenario.

I haven't read their reply to the CCC, but I don't see much of a multiverse scenario in Penrose's structure. I would have to read it to understand what it is that they are saying.


I could get a pdf of the chapter, I would like to reread it too.

3
Political Threads / Re: Biden is very corrupt
« on: October 19, 2020, 07:29:07 am »
It all seems very suspicious considering the timing, the polls and all that..as if it is a last desperate effort to sway support similarly to what happened with Clinton's emails in 2016. It just looks like a setup, perhaps orchestrated by Giuliani seeing that he has spent such a lot of effort on this that goes back months, years. Snopes has so far uncovered some questionable details.


I'm of this persuasion as well. If this was a matter of national security it would have been brought to the FBI long before now, instead of being sat on in an obvious calculated attack on the Bidens.


All I'm reading, beyond the Fox News conspiratorial bubble of course, is that Giuliani has been duped by Russian disinformation and could end up with not only egg on his face but a hefty libel suit as well.


And don't get me started on Biden being corrupt; Giuliani's cronies have just recently been arrested for attempting to funnel foreign money into their campaigns to buy influence for the election. I swear the GOP and the alt-right are the very archetype of Hitchcock's gaslighting. They accuse everyone of doing what they get caught doing on the regular.

4
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Penrose and WLC discuss cosmology.
« on: October 12, 2020, 03:12:29 am »
...because all the matter in the universe runs down or expires due to heat death or Big Crunch etc.

My understanding is that once all the particles with mass decay into massless particles that the universe loses a tick, tick, tick progression. It also loses size as well. One can describe spacetime as endlessly expanding to infinity, or just as equivalently one can describe it as the point of immense energy in one specific point at a t0. It's this second account which leads to the next aeon.

I really like the creativity of his view and while it avoids a beginning, it might also offer a possibility for a New Heavens and a New Earth. So, it might have "something" valuable. At least it gives us an opportunity to enjoy Penrose's geniusness. As we learned from Stephen Hawking, we don't have these type of geniuses around forever so what a joy it is to consider their theories while they are still around to respond to questions.


I do admire it too for the originality of the approach, but Craig and Sinclair give an extensive rundown of it in their 2012 book Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion.


They argue what I just did, that the "aeons" are actually separate in kind space-times once you lost the reductive concept of time (that time depends on there being physical material in the universe with which one can build a clock) you end up with a multiverse scenario.

5
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Penrose and WLC discuss cosmology.
« on: October 10, 2020, 03:56:30 am »
...I don't think it relies on anything "experiencing" time infinitely fast. It sounds more like he needs all surviving particles to be massless for a rather more technical reason related to this conformal mapping he does between aeons. I'm not quite sure how that works exactly though.  He also has effectively infinite time to work with in each aeon, so he can just make the model such that all massive particles *do* eventually decay to e.g. photons, it just takes a ridiculously long time to happen so we never see it.

Here is Penrose's first published paper on CCC.  He says the following:

Quote
Physically, we may think that again in the very remote future, the universe “forgets” time in the sense that there is no way to build a clock with just conformally invariant material. This is related to the fact that massless particles, in relativity theory, do not experience any passage of time. We might even say that to a massless particle, “eternity is no big deal”. So the future boundary, to such an entity is just like anywhere else. With conformal invariance both in the remote future and at the Big-Bang origin, we can try to argue that the two situations are physically identical, so the remote future of one phase of the universe becomes the Big Bang of the next. This suggestion is my “outrageous” conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC)

If electrons have mass then according to relativity theory they do experience time. Electrons have mass (and there's no evidence they decay into photons any more than photons decay into electrons). Therefore, I really would have liked it if Craig would have brought this up. How can CCC work if it depends on massless particles being the only clock?



well, therein lies the rub, and this is the reason the CCC does not ultimately produce something devastating and original in terms of criticisms of the KCA.


Penrose bills this as a truly cyclical cosmology with an eternal past and no beginning but paradoxically each new cycle has a fresh "beginning", because all the matter in the universe runs down or expires due to heat death or Big Crunch etc.



But this just turns on a fairly reductive view of time; Penrose equates time with the capacity to measure time and this is a premise Craig does not have to accept. IOW this argues that time only exists if there is a clock, that time requires the existence of physical matter with which one could build a clock to measure time. Hence, no physical matter, no clock, and no time.


But we don't have to accept this reductive analysis of time. When we disabuse this position on time Penrose's new beginnings are the beginnings of entirely new universes, not the continuation of our universe with the past mysteriously "erased" due to the degradation of the universe's matter. The new space-times are not our past, and hence, it becomes a multiverse model with a common genesis of all the space-times.

6
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Do impossible thoughts exist?
« on: October 10, 2020, 03:42:58 am »
Depends. You can't think of an impossible concept, like a married bachelor, but you can imagine an impossible thing, like a dragon or a unicorn, or a mile-high unicycle.

7
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: The foundation of logic
« on: October 03, 2020, 03:27:37 am »
I don't think the word "subservient" is the correct one to use, at least in classical theism, I'll let the theistic personalists work out their own conundrums.


Logic is just an expression of God as the source of being and intelligibility. I don't think its more of a threat to theism in saying God is subservient to logic as saying God is subservient to Being.

Rather, God is Being.

8
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: Divine Love defeats the Kalam
« on: September 24, 2020, 07:10:16 am »
Objections to the Kalam, particularly the second premise, are always scientific or philosophical.  But I think there is a stronger case against the Kalam that comes from a theological reflection on the nature of God.

God is Love.  This is a clear teaching and conclusion from both natural and revealed theology.  So God is Love and it is proper for love to always expand in love.  To love beyond the limits of the self who loves.  Following this line of reason to the very end means that creation, while obviously contingent on God, nevertheless could not have failed to exist at any point.  Without creation, God would be limited to himself and limited in his Love; a Love that is strictly a self-love and limited in its affirmation.  But God is neither limited nor is he selfish.  To strictly love himself without confern or care for any other is not love at all.  Love is always about another.  And so there must have always been some other that God loves in order to be the absolute infinite Love we affirm him to be; that other is his creation.

Let me know your thoughts on this.  I have certainly not developed thjs argument as strong as I'd like to yet.  But this is the general idea.


I give you points for originality in formulating this objection, but this is not an attack on the Kalam per se but rather on the doctrine of creation. But Christian theology has a unique answer to this conundrum in the Trinity. God does not exist from eternity alone and with no-one to love but rather exists in the fullness of being and love that is the Trinity. The Father and the Son love the other and this "spirates" as the Spirit.


Creation itself is the generous outpouring of this self-giving love of the Godhead as the "other". What we see as creation just is God's eternal love from the Godhead.

9
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What argument has most intrigued you?
« on: September 12, 2020, 09:12:35 am »
I found the Modal Ontological Argument quite intriguing when I first heard it, in a "well that's obviously nonsense but I can't quite say how" kind of way. It inspired me to learn the basics of modal logic, and now I *can* say what the problem with it is ;).


I disagree with the MOA based on a doctrine of God and an entire approach to philosophy, not because the argument is bad. But the MOA and other OA's do a great job in my opinion of demonstrating that God is either necessary or impossible; he is not a thing or an entity which may or may not exist. He inhabits another modality entirely.

It doesn't even do that, really. It just starts from a definition of God such that that is the case. It doesn't make much of an argument that God *must* be defined that way.



But that is the entire point of the MOA;if God is even possible, God must exist. Hence he is not a thing or entity which may or may not exist somewhere.


You can't just dismiss the argument on the basis you think it is semantics, you need to actually dispute the modal logic involved.

10
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What argument has most intrigued you?
« on: September 10, 2020, 06:15:32 am »
I found the Modal Ontological Argument quite intriguing when I first heard it, in a "well that's obviously nonsense but I can't quite say how" kind of way. It inspired me to learn the basics of modal logic, and now I *can* say what the problem with it is ;).


I disagree with the MOA based on a doctrine of God and an entire approach to philosophy, not because the argument is bad. But the MOA and other OA's do a great job in my opinion of demonstrating that God is either necessary or impossible; he is not a thing or an entity which may or may not exist. He inhabits another modality entirely.

11
Choose Your Own Topic / Re: What argument has most intrigued you?
« on: September 09, 2020, 01:08:22 am »
I obviously diverge a little from the analytic and Craigian-Plantingian bent on the forum, but the classically theistic arguments intrigue me the most. Because it isn't just about number crunching or scientific study, but diving right into the fabric of Being Itself. they are timeless arguments which apply to anything and everything that is.

The most intriguing argument out of this lot is Duns Scotus modal proof. It is lesser known and that is for a reason, namely its infernal complexity. The argument in laymens is simply that the First Cause is necessarily the Preeminent Formal Cause and the Final Cause: They all imply the other.

It is so complex you almost need the professional metaphysician to understand it, but if sound it would be ironclad proof of the God of Theism.

12
Political Threads / Re: What are your thoughts on Donald Trump?
« on: September 06, 2020, 11:12:11 pm »
Trump has a lengthy history of racism, IMO. Definitely a racist.

13
1. Our Universe is reconfiguring itself in an orderly manner.
2. Our Universe is life permitting.
3. When considering all physically possible universes, the existence of a chaotic non-life permitting universe is more likely.
4. Therefore, both (1) and (2) require an explanation.
5. The best possible explanation is that the Universe has been finely tuned.


There is also the possibility of an overall chaotic universe permitting life. Last I read there could be a chaotic universe with a small pocket of order the size of our solar system which could support life amongst the rest of the chaotic universe.


As I recall a universe like this would be exponentially more likely amongst the universe ensemble.

14
I can comprehend time having a beginning but not not a beginning; that is per se absurd as the arguments demonstrate.

15
Political Threads / Re: What are your thoughts on Donald Trump?
« on: September 03, 2020, 06:34:48 am »
Any Christian who could honestly believe a malignant narcissist, a pathological liar and a serial adulterer could possibly be a messenger of God needs to seriously question whether they are even a Christian.


I mean that. I cannot see how any person familiar with the message of Christianity could lend any support to that vile man.

Pages : [1] 2 3 ... 309