Philosophy Discussion Forums

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wizard, I don't see how conservation relates to picking up a stone unless you're talking about conversion into potential energy. And how does this relate to the life of a stone?

Modern science upholds the tenet, Conservation of Energy. If energy neither is created nor destroyed, then it is paradoxical to then further posit that the Universe began, or will end, and that matter was created or will become destroyed. Because there are logical contradictions here.

Any presupposed beginning of the universe must also presume the same about the beginning of energy. In fact, this is why Big Bang ardents claim that at the "beginning" of the universe, all energy was smashed into an minuscule location. But there is a much simpler explanation:

The universe is not the same thing/type as energy. You can even presume that energy exists 'outside' the universe.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Where you said: "Death is the anthropomorphized finality. It is a projection of a supposed non existence." Don't astronomers talk about stars dying?

Yes, that is an anthropomorphic fallacy. You don't say that rocks live and die, do you? Do you say that helium gas lives and die? No.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Getting back to that stone, doesn't' its existence end when a stonemason smashes it to bits?

At least, its energy is not destroyed, but transformed.

Existence is another concept to avoid, for now. The existence of a rock is not the same as its energy, or supposed "life and death", beginning and end.

"(Our) life has no end in the same way in which our visual field has no limits."

Wizard,

Now let me ask you how do you know the stone has no beginning nor end? Were you present when the stone came into being? And how do you know that stone won't wind up in a quarry to be eventually smashed to bits or worn down by wind and rain into nonexistence?

-- Updated February 7th, 2014, 12:06 am to add the following --

Michaelpearson wrote:"(Our) life has no end in the same way in which our visual field has no limits."

Non sequitur MP.

-- Updated February 7th, 2014, 12:21 am to add the following --

Wizard wrote:

"Modern science upholds the tenet, Conservation of Energy. If energy neither is created nor destroyed, then it is paradoxical to then further posit that the Universe began, or will end, and that matter was created or will become destroyed. Because there are logical contradictions here."

According to modern physics, the modern statement of the the conservation principle is "mass and energy is neither created nor destroyed, but can be converted from one into another" which implies that energy was present at the beginning of the universe.

Wizard also wrote:

"In fact, this is why Big Bang ardents claim that at the "beginning" of the universe, all energy was smashed into an minuscule location."

Can you give me a reputable source or reference for this statement?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Wizard,

Now let me ask you how do you know the stone has no beginning nor end?

Because beginnings and ends are abstractions, postulations of finitude, when and where finitude may not exist.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Were you present when the stone came into being? And how do you know that stone won't wind up in a quarry to be eventually smashed to bits or worn down by wind and rain into nonexistence?

But you see, that's just the thing. A stone is much simpler than a human, or an animal, or a cell. The stone can sit on a table, for your entire lifetime, and it will not change in such a way that you'll notice. For 100 years, or perhaps a million years. A rock is very resistant to change. But is life, a living organism, the same as a rock? Does life change?

What happens to you within 100 years? You grow from infancy, into an adult, then decay, then die. Your life is proof of change, but the rock?

The rock resists change better than you or I.

And so it must be a much easier question to analyze how exactly the rock came into being, compared to the changing complexity of life. Where did the rock come from, is a much easier and simpler question than, where did life come from?

And so when I presume the universe is infinite, and rocks endure infinitely, then it makes much more sense, and it is exponentially more reasonable, to carry this premise higher and apply it toward life from the bottom up, instead of applying principles from the top down.

The change is relative. And to understand the beginning of one thing, is necessary to understand the beginning of anything else.


Just because humans are born, doesn't mean rocks are born, and it certainly does not mean that stars or universes are born.

Wizard wrote:

"Because beginnings and ends are abstractions, postulations of finitude, when and where finitude may not exist."

Abstractions you say, abstractions of what?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Abstractions you say, abstractions of what?

Memories.

Wizard wrote:

"Because beginnings and ends are abstractions, postulations of finitude, when and where finitude may not exist."

Abstractions you say, abstractions of what?

Wizard also wrote:

"But you see, that's just the thing. A stone is much simpler than a human, or an animal, or a cell. The stone can sit on a table, for your entire lifetime, and it will not change in such a way that you'll notice. For 100 years, or perhaps a million years."

But the stone can and does change. And we change as we grow up and die. What makes the universe any different? There doesn't seem to be any doubts among leading scientists about the birth of our universe. Can you give a reference to a reputable source that denies this?

-- Updated February 7th, 2014, 1:14 am to add the following --

Wizard wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Abstractions you say, abstractions of what?

Memories.

There are scientific ways of establishing beginnings and endings that don't rely on memory.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Can you give a reference to a reputable source that denies this?

I deny it, and that's enough for me. Do scientists do your philosophizing for you, too?

Scientists are already obliged to doubt the conclusions of their tests and theories. If they didn't, then science would be religion, not science. Although this confusion is easy to make, considering the Big Bang, and Creationism, are both wrought from Catholic thinkers.

Just examine the source.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:There are scientific ways of establishing beginnings and endings that don't rely on memory.

Such as?

Wizard,

I can't examine your source since you're not giving me any to examine.

Such as? Well I already listed a source back in post #8 which Greta finds interesting and which I find acceptable. So I'll now ask you for your source one more time?

My source is myself.

Why would I give up truth and place it into somebody else's hands? The title of "scientist" means almost nothing to me, similar to the title of a priest. I am a philosopher, not a scientist, not a priest.

What are you? Are you a scientist? Is this a science forum?

How does the scientific Big Bang Theory truly differ from religious Creationism? Both imply the same premise, finitude of the universe. Where did they justify this belief? Where did they provide their reasoning?

We have no reason to believe in any beginning of the universe, whether scientific or religious, makes no difference.

Wizard, you wrote this:


"In fact, this is why Big Bang ardents claim that at the "beginning" of the universe, all energy was smashed into an minuscule location."

So where did this supposed fact come from?

Also note that since this is the science category, then there's no need for me to go into religion.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:So where did this supposed fact come from?

Postulations from scientists who are forced, against their will, to reconcile a logical paradox, that the Conservation of Energy must remain truth with respect to any theoretical 'beginning' of the universe. But this is not such an easy dilemma for science, hence, the ambiguity in the theory of the Big Bang.

In this, Big Bang and Creationism are no different, and thus, both appear as religious mumbo jumbo, articles of faith rather than what you seem to be calling "science".

Can you name the scientists who said that Wizard?

Name scientists who believe the universe was condensed with all of its energy in a very small location, at the beginning of the universe, as the Big Bang began???

Why do you want the names of these scientists so badly? [...]

Wizard wrote:Name scientists who believe the universe was condensed with all of its energy in a very small location, at the beginning of the universe, as the Big Bang began???

Why do you want the names of these scientists so badly?

Why do I want their names? Because you referred to unspecified scientists makins a statement I've never heard of before which I want to verify. Once you give the names, then we can proceed. [...]