Yes, I'm also aware of this and would point out that I never said that he claims it to be.
Now OC, please go back and re-read what I
did
say about the KCA - especially how it is often misrepresented by both Christians and non-Christians, who think mistakenly think of it as a proof, not an argument.
Let me restate the point.
I
do
understand that the KCA is an argument and not a proof.
The thrust of my earlier message, stated in simple terms, was that if evidence came to light that invalidated the KCA, I would be pleased on two counts. Firstly, because I'm an Atheist and secondly because I could then point those mistaken Christians and non-Christians (who wrongly think of it as a proof) to this new evidence saying, "There! The KCA is not a proof and it never was! Deal with it!"
Sorry, I was not trying to beat a dead horse. I was just reiterating the proper place of the KCA. You should watch this 39 second clip.
The universe would naturally include anything beyond our observable horizon.
Excellently done! I now believe I have an understanding of what you believe "universe" means in the argument; let me summarize before we continue. The universe would include all matter, space and time including what we've observed and potentially what we haven't. It would not include any supernatural phenomenon if such exists. Is that agreeable?
Yes.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:17 am
OrdinaryClay wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
Quote:
The universe would naturally include anything beyond our observable horizon.
Excellently done! I now believe I have an understanding of what you believe "universe" means in the argument; let me summarize before we continue. The universe would include all matter, space and time including what we've observed and potentially what we haven't. It would not include any supernatural phenomenon if such exists. Is that agreeable?
Yes.
First, I'd like to thank you for humoring my questioning nature OC. With our definition of the universe agreed to, how would you determine it "began to exist"?
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:40 pm
Bumping this thread because I'm interested in OC's responce...
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:51 am
MockingGods wrote:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
Quote:
The universe would naturally include anything beyond our observable horizon.
Excellently done! I now believe I have an understanding of what you believe "universe" means in the argument; let me summarize before we continue. The universe would include all matter, space and time including what we've observed and potentially what we haven't. It would not include any supernatural phenomenon if such exists. Is that agreeable?
Yes.
First, I'd like to thank you for humoring my questioning nature OC. With our definition of the universe agreed to, how would you determine it "began to exist"?
Sorry, I'm not sure my responding will make any difference. Modern cosmology claims that our current best science points to a beginning. I don't know what else to say. People can make a free will choice to reject something.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:48 pm
The OC wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure my responding will make any difference. Modern cosmology claims that our current best science points to a beginning. I don't know what else to say.
Yes, but this can only be extended to our agreed upon definition of universe insofar as it applies to the perhaps very limited portion humanity has observed and can not be extended past that. Shall we redefine the word "universe" in the KCA to only include the "observable universe" as I originally suggested it should be written?
Quote:
People can make a free will choice to reject something.
Interesting...
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:48 pm
MockingGods wrote:
The OC wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure my responding will make any difference. Modern cosmology claims that our current best science points to a beginning. I don't know what else to say.
Yes, but this can only be extended to our agreed upon definition of universe insofar as it applies to the perhaps very limited portion humanity has observed and can not be extended past that. Shall we redefine the word "universe" in the KCA to only include the "observable universe" as I originally suggested it should be written?
Well, no cosmology theories can make predictions beyond what we can observe. We may never be able to empirically verify that, but still they are predicted and assumed valid. For example, we believe the conservation laws apply every where in the universe even though we can not actually go every where and test it. This is the essence of the
Copernican Principal
. We can keep the definition we have.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:07 am
OrdinaryClay wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
The OC wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure my responding will make any difference. Modern cosmology claims that our current best science points to a beginning. I don't know what else to say.
Yes, but this can only be extended to our agreed upon definition of universe insofar as it applies to the perhaps very limited portion humanity has observed and can not be extended past that. Shall we redefine the word "universe" in the KCA to only include the "observable universe" as I originally suggested it should be written?
Well, no cosmology theories can make predictions beyond what we can observe.
{{Yes they can, OC, yes they have...}}
We may never be able to empirically verify that, but still they are predicted and assumed valid.
For example, we believe the conservation laws apply every where in the universe even though we can not actually go every where and test it.
This is the essence of the
Copernican Principal
. We can keep the definition we have.
Au contraire mon frere, always read the whole story (which, to be honest can get exhausting!)
Copernican Principle, Wikipedia wrote:
Modern tests
From the PhysicsWorld.org news article "New tests of the Copernican Principle proposed,"[10]
Robert Caldwell from Dartmouth College and Albert Stebbins from Fermi National Laboratory in the US explain how the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation spectrum — an all pervasive sea of microwave radiation originating just 380 000 years after the Big Bang — could be used to test whether the Copernican Principle stands.[11]
Is there anything the CMB can't be used for?
In a separate paper, Jean-Philippe Uzan from the Pierre and Marie Curie University in France along with Chris Clarkson and George Ellis from the University of Cape Town in South Africa suggest another way to test the Copernican Principle[12]. Their scheme involves measuring the red-shift of galaxies — the shift in wavelength of light to longer wavelengths due to a speedup — very precisely over time to see if there are changes. The team argues that this red-shift data can be combined with measurements of the distance of the galaxies to infer if the universe is spatially homogeneous — which is a tenet of the Copernican Principle.
OC and anyone else interested in Cosmology, if you have a spare hour, 440mb of bandwidth and some curiosity (humour would help too) - watch 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss (google it) and get a nuanced impression of where things is at...
PS- the most famous example of predictions that were based on observations and yet went beyond what was possible to test at the time was Albert Einstein's Theory of General Relativity... it took years for this to be tested (and even more for the definitive proof to come through) but there you have it...
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:35 am
iPondR wrote:
OrdinaryClay wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
The OC wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure my responding will make any difference. Modern cosmology claims that our current best science points to a beginning. I don't know what else to say.
Yes, but this can only be extended to our agreed upon definition of universe insofar as it applies to the perhaps very limited portion humanity has observed and can not be extended past that. Shall we redefine the word "universe" in the KCA to only include the "observable universe" as I originally suggested it should be written?
Well, no cosmology theories can make predictions beyond what we can observe.
{{Yes they can, OC, yes they have...}}
We may never be able to empirically verify that, but still they are predicted and assumed valid.
For example, we believe the conservation laws apply every where in the universe even though we can not actually go every where and test it.
This is the essence of the
Copernican Principal
. We can keep the definition we have.
Au contraire mon frere, always read the whole story (which, to be honest can get exhausting!)
Oops, Sorry. I agree actually. That is why I said what I did in the blue. The sentence should start - "Well, no, cosmology theories can ...". Man it is amazing how one missing comma can change a sentence so much.
Quote:
OC and anyone else interested in Cosmology, if you have a spare hour, 440mb of bandwidth and some curiosity (humour would help too) - watch 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss (google it) and get a nuanced impression of where things is at...
I think this is one of the most famous and believed (by atheists) speculations on the net. It is in fact nothing but speculation (which does not qualify as a prediction) with no empirical science behind it.
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:56 pm
OrdinaryClay wrote:
MockingGods wrote:
The OC wrote:
Sorry, I'm not sure my responding will make any difference. Modern cosmology claims that our current best science points to a beginning. I don't know what else to say.
Yes, but this can only be extended to our agreed upon definition of universe insofar as it applies to the perhaps very limited portion humanity has observed and can not be extended past that. Shall we redefine the word "universe" in the KCA to only include the "observable universe" as I originally suggested it should be written?
Well, no cosmology theories can make predictions beyond what we can observe. We may never be able to empirically verify that, but still they are predicted and assumed valid. For example, we believe the conservation laws apply every where in the universe even though we can not actually go every where and test it. This is the essence of the
Copernican Principal
. We can keep the definition we have.
You're using observational data to make an assumption about the universe (as we've defined it). You're assuming that because MOST of the light-emitting matter we've observed is red-shifted, then all matter, including that which we haven't observed, must also be red-shifted. This of course infers that all matter in existence must originate from the original source of the expansion. The KCA argument's universe (as we've defined) can not be totally based upon observational data... and I'm not sure this is a road you wish to go down. If we wish to go down this road, then you must allow assumptions on my part as well.
For instance, based upon the theory that the observable universe began to expand, there could be many (if space is flat as observation data suggest, then there could be infinite expansions) such expansions beyond our observable horizon. Which of course would infer there's a great deal of matter moving toward us, as well as away from us.
iPondR Graduate Thinker
Joined: Aug 19, 2009
Posts: 534
Location: Aussie Prawn Facility; District 10
Posted:
Sun Feb 28, 2010 4:13 am
OC wrote:
Oops, Sorry. I agree actually. That is why I said what I did in the blue. The sentence should start - "Well, no, cosmology theories can ...". Man it is amazing how one missing comma can change a sentence so much.
Yeah, I see what you mean! I do try to read things in context, apologies for the 'rabidity'
Quote:
I think this is one of the most famous and believed (by atheists) speculations on the net. It is in fact nothing but speculation (which does not qualify as a prediction) with no empirical science behind it.
So, you've seen it already? I'd speculate it's one of the most widely dismissed by theists, yet one of the least watched.'Reasons to believe' dissed it without even knowing what's in it. Whatever.
_________________ I take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance, any day... - Douglas Adams
MockingGods Master of Logic
Joined: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 5693
Location: Planet Earth
Posted:
Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:52 pm
Bumping this thread again...
It should be noted that we've now expended a great amount of effort just covering what I consider(ed) the ambiguous nature of the word "universe" in the KCA and still haven't reached an exact agreement on how our expanded definition relates to the second half of a very short premise.
The KCA wrote:
The universe began to exist.
Next I need to know what it means by "began to exist". The ball is in your court OC
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:19 am
MockingGods wrote:
You're using observational data to make an assumption about the universe (as we've defined it). You're assuming that because MOST of the light-emitting matter we've observed is red-shifted, then all matter, including that which we haven't observed, must also be red-shifted. This of course infers that all matter in existence must originate from the original source of the expansion. The KCA argument's universe (as we've defined) can not be totally based upon observational data... and I'm not sure this is a road you wish to go down. If we wish to go down this road, then you must allow assumptions on my part as well.
For instance, based upon the theory that the observable universe began to expand, there could be many (if space is flat as observation data suggest, then there could be infinite expansions) such expansions beyond our observable horizon. Which of course would infer there's a great deal of matter moving toward us, as well as away from us.
Actually, all the KCA requires is a beginning to the universe.
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:21 am
iPondR wrote:
Quote:
I think this is one of the most famous and believed (by atheists) speculations on the net. It is in fact nothing but speculation (which does not qualify as a prediction) with no empirical science behind it.
So, you've seen it already? I'd speculate it's one of the most widely dismissed by theists, yet one of the least watched.'Reasons to believe' dissed it without even knowing what's in it. Whatever.
Yes, I've seen it. So which of his claims do you purport to be scientific?
Last edited by OrdinaryClay on Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
OrdinaryClay Confident Learner
Joined: Feb 09, 2010
Posts: 92
Posted:
Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:37 am
MockingGods wrote:
Bumping this thread again...
It should be noted that we've now expended a great amount of effort just covering what I consider(ed) the ambiguous nature of the word "universe" in the KCA and still haven't reached an exact agreement on how our expanded definition relates to the second half of a very short premise.
The KCA wrote:
The universe began to exist.
Next I need to know what it means by "began to exist". The ball is in your court OC
The property
begins to exist
is held by an entity if there exists two logically sequential points in which an entity did not exist in the logically prior point and then exists in the logically posterior point..
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
I'd speculate it's one of the most widely dismissed by theists, yet one of the least watched.'Reasons to believe' dissed it without even knowing what's in it. Whatever.