Question for physicists

[Joseph Geloso]

Assuming the Big Bang scenario is accurate, this means that all matter
in the Universe is moving away from all other matter. The exceptions to
this universal rule are of course, gravtiational systems, i.e.
planet-sattelite, stellar-planetary, galactic. In all cases of
gravitational systems, there is the phenomenon of orbit, where the
elements of the system remain in more or less stable configuration with
regard to each other and the less massive bodies orbit the greater, or
(as in e.g. binary stars) bodies of nearly similar mass orbit each
other.

The exception to this is when galaxies collide. How can this be? Here
we have huge systems (galaxies) with collective momentum that sends
them towards, not away from, neighboring matter. Whence did they
acquire such momentum?

In a scenario where every vector proceeds away from any given arbitrary
point, as in Big Bang, how do individual objects or collectives
overcome this universal tendency and develop vectors that send them
crashing into one another?

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> Assuming the Big Bang scenario is accurate, this means that all matter
> in the Universe is moving away from all other matter.

On average, yes.

> The exceptions to
> this universal rule are of course, gravtiational systems, i.e.
> planet-sattelite, stellar-planetary, galactic.

Not only that, but any interaction.

> In all cases of
> gravitational systems, there is the phenomenon of orbit, where the
> elements of the system remain in more or less stable configuration with
> regard to each other and the less massive bodies orbit the greater, or
> (as in e.g. binary stars) bodies of nearly similar mass orbit each
> other.
>
> The exception to this is when galaxies collide. How can this be? Here
> we have huge systems (galaxies) with collective momentum that sends
> them towards, not away from, neighboring matter. Whence did they
> acquire such momentum?

During the nanoseconds after the Big Bang, the universe was a dense,
hot, quark-gluon plasma in which light was emitted and reabsorbed
quickly, and the whole thing was a maelstrom of quantum activity due to
the high temperature. The electromagnetic and weak interactions were
comparable in strength, so was the strong nuclear force, and gravity
(presumably). Eventually due to expansion, this mixture cooled
sufficiently to allow "nucleosynthesis", or the creation of nuclei.
During that time, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the
high-frequency oscillations of the plasma were not able to be
reabsorbed, hence forming the "cosmic microwave background" you hear
about. The initial dynamical system caused momenta to occur in all
directions, and years later, when star formation occured, that momentum
was conserved.

>
> In a scenario where every vector proceeds away from any given arbitrary
> point, as in Big Bang, how do individual objects or collectives
> overcome this universal tendency and develop vectors that send them
> crashing into one another?

The rate of change of the interaction just has to overcome the rate of
the expansion of space itself.

[Joseph Geloso]

Since I have your attention, I was wondering about this - what seems to
me plausible - alternate explanation for red shift. What if light
simply degenerates over time, losing energy and thus losing frequency?
What if red shift is the result of the light from distant galaxies
having travelled through that much space over that much time?

[PD]

On Oct 22, 2:58 pm, "Joseph Geloso" <josep...@hotmail.com> wrote:

This is now spectacularly off-topic. If you'd like answers about why
things can run into each other in an expanding universe, or to
understand why the "tired light" hypothesis for redshift has been
experimentally ruled out, I suggest you post your questions to
sci.physics, where there is a much greater chance that you'll be asking
a larger group of people competent to answer.

PD

[Joseph Geloso]

Well, I did a search on Dogpile with your phrase ' "tired light"
hypothesis for redshift has been experimentally ruled out,' and some of
the results I came up with were surprising. Suffice it to say that Big
Bang Theory, popular as it is, is not the only explanation for things,
and is indeed plagued by holes that require the position of other
unknown and unobserved entities. I believe it to be a very popular
speculation among scientists, very very far removed from a "fact." I
think we can drop it from these discussions, except if someone invokes
it as "fact," in which case it must simply be pointed out that
consensus is not universal, and also, that truth is not a democracy.

[PD]

Indeed. As I said, if you want real facts on the issue, then go where
you're likely to find facts. Of course, if it's not your intention to
learn anything, and you simply want to troll here, be my guest.
However, I will not indulge you an answer here.

PD

[Joseph Geloso]

It's O.K., P.D., I'm not really sure I was talking to you. There be
physicists, here.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Joseph, the tired light hypothesis is not a very good explanation of
galaxial redshift, in that it does not explain all the phenomena we
observe. No tired light model can explain how, for example, all
wavelengths of light are affected the same way, along with several
other inconsistencies with data. The cosmic inflationary model,
however, currently describes *all* the data we observe better than any
other theory, and hence is accepted as the most accurate hypothesis.

As usual there are other plausible explanations, however, only one is
the right answer, and a necessary condition for the "right answer"
would be to explain all the phenomena we observe in experimentation,
and the tired light hypothesis does not (whereas cosmic inflation does).

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
>
> It's O.K., P.D., I'm not really sure I was talking to you. There be
> physicists, here.

Actually PD is a physicist and perfectly qualified to answer your
questions.

[Joseph Geloso]

You mean, instead of dismissing it. Anyway, good to know there are at
least two physicists here.

[Joseph Geloso]

Thank you. Thanks also for your patience.

[James Barlow]

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Well, I did a search on Dogpile with your phrase ' "tired light"
hypothesis for redshift has been experimentally ruled out,' and some of
the results I came up with were surprising. Suffice it to say that Big
Bang Theory, popular as it is, is not the only explanation for things,
and is indeed plagued by holes that require the position of other
unknown and unobserved entities. I believe it to be a very popular
speculation among scientists, very very far removed from a "fact." I
think we can drop it from these discussions, except if someone invokes
it as "fact," "

   This is hilarious. As if things should be dropped from the list after a member or two is assured of said thing's non-factual basis!

PD wrote:

---

Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

[Joseph Geloso]

James Barlow wrote:
> Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Well, I did a search on Dogpile with your phrase ' "tired light"
> hypothesis for redshift has been experimentally ruled out,' and some of
> the results I came up with were surprising. Suffice it to say that Big
> Bang Theory, popular as it is, is not the only explanation for things,
> and is indeed plagued by holes that require the position of other
> unknown and unobserved entities. I believe it to be a very popular
> speculation among scientists, very very far removed from a "fact." I
> think we can drop it from these discussions, except if someone invokes
> it as "fact," "
> This is hilarious. As if things should be dropped from the list after a member or two is assured of said thing's non-factual basis!

The reason for dropping it would be the off-topic nature of the
discussion.

[scooter]

The Big Bang is not a fact and no one claims that it is. It is a theory
based on facts (e.g. the red shift, CMB ect. are all facts). That is
the difference between your assertions and the scientific theory of the
Big Bang. One theory is based on facts while your "First Cause" has to
be God" nonsense is based on nothing. I think we can drop "god" from
the discussion except if someone invokes it as "fact".

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

Didn't Hawking et. al. come up with an alternative theory where the
universe did not need a beginning? I can't remember the details, but I
recall him presenting it.

[Saint Onan]

Red_Pill_Blue_Pill wrote:
> Didn't Hawking et. al. come up with an alternative theory where the
> universe did not need a beginning?

Hawking's alternative model doesn't change the fact that the universe
emerged from the Big Bang. Hawking introduced a mathematical trick to
avoid the difficulties caused by having to mathematically model a
beginning to time; in Hawking's model the time axis disappears into the
singularity and pops out again on the other side; rather like the way a
longitudinal line on the Earth's surface will vanish into the North
Pole and reappear on the other side.

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

I'm aware this isn't the proper forum, but I'm curious: how can we be
sure these mathematical tricks provide accurate representations of
reality? No agenda, no pro-theistic aim, I'm just curious how it works.

[Saint Onan]

Red_Pill_Blue_Pill wrote:
> I'm aware this isn't the proper forum, but I'm curious: how can we be
> sure these mathematical tricks provide accurate representations of
> reality? No agenda, no pro-theistic aim, I'm just curious how it works.

A mathematical model on its own isn't proof of anything, no matter how
beautiful or ingenious it is. That's the current status of string
theory, for example.

The test of the "truth" of a theory is that it should make predictions,
that can then be experimentally confirmed; that's when the theory is
compared to reality.

In the specific case of Hawking's model for the Big Bang, I'm not
sufficiently well-versed in physics or cosmology to know whether it
added any new predictions over previous models. I think the reason it's
a widely accepted theory is because it explains what we observe (that
the Big Bang happened) more elegantly than theories that have to carry
around more mathematical baggage. That is, if you want to incorporate a
beginning to the universe in your model, you have to write a whole heap
of extra equations to describe the discontinuity between when there
wasn't a universe, and when there was.

[Msgt_Billy]

There's more than one. The membranes theory circa 2001 is intriguing,
but it involves other dimensions. I think you can probably find it
still on space.com.

Billy

[Joseph Geloso]

scooter wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > James Barlow wrote:
> > > Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > "Well, I did a search on Dogpile with your phrase ' "tired light"
> > > hypothesis for redshift has been experimentally ruled out,' and some of
> > > the results I came up with were surprising. Suffice it to say that Big
> > > Bang Theory, popular as it is, is not the only explanation for things,
> > > and is indeed plagued by holes that require the position of other
> > > unknown and unobserved entities. I believe it to be a very popular
> > > speculation among scientists, very very far removed from a "fact." I
> > > think we can drop it from these discussions, except if someone invokes
> > > it as "fact," "
> > > This is hilarious. As if things should be dropped from the list after a member or two is assured of said thing's non-factual basis!
> >
> > The reason for dropping it would be the off-topic nature of the
> > discussion.
>
> The Big Bang is not a fact and no one claims that it is.

Well, except for those who are making exactly that claim, even in this
very thread.

> It is a theory
> based on facts (e.g. the red shift, CMB ect. are all facts).

O.K.

> That is
> the difference between your assertions and the scientific theory of the
> Big Bang. One theory is based on facts while your "First Cause" has to
> be God" nonsense is based on nothing.

Except that I have advanced that only as my personal belief, and have
not claimed to have proven it. What I have proven so far is that there
must be a Necessary Existent - whatever it might be - and currently, I
am working on proving that it cannot be an infinite regress of
contingencies.

> I think we can drop "god" from
> the discussion except if someone invokes it as "fact".

In marked contrast to Big Bang theory, the subject of God is directly
on-topic. I don't care at all about "god," we can drop "god" if you
like. I would prefer it in fact.

[rappoccio@gmail.com]

To add to this, string theory supplies us with a natural way to have
something similar to Hawking's model be a little more plausible.
Ultimately, if you try to access information above the Plank scale
(where gravity becomes as strong as the other forces), you will
basically "invert" the string in a strange sense, and start looking at
larger length scales again. Similar arguments can be applied to the Big
Bang, that ultimately removes the singularity in favor of a string-like
brane that began expanding.

[scooter]

Oh no. You specifically have said, and I quote: "The Cosmological Proof
of God has been established. It is at the links
given above, on this very forum. Let someone refute it if they can. Not

too much to ask, I think."

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/435d3fef76248684?scoring=d&

Only after someone "refuted" did you then change your tune.

>
> > I think we can drop "god" from
> > the discussion except if someone invokes it as "fact".
>
> In marked contrast to Big Bang theory, the subject of God is directly
> on-topic. I don't care at all about "god," we can drop "god" if you
> like. I would prefer it in fact.

You started this thread. If you read your own title you might notice it
says nothing about "god" and everything about science. Furthermore, it
is you who has brought science into the forum and on multiple
occasions. And, as an addendum to you thinking you're clever: I think
we can drop God from the discussion except if someone invokes Him as
"fact".

[Roger LeGrande]

Someone in this group has refuted Mr. Gelaso's Cosmological Proof? How can I see this?

----anselmovitch

scooter <kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> scooter wrote:
> > Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > James Barlow wrote:

[Roger LeGrande]

Maybe an infinite regress of these contingencies is not to be conceived as a line or arrow going one way, but loops around.

-anselmovitch

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

scooter wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > James Barlow wrote:

[Joseph Geloso]

That is actually bad quoting on your part. Here is what I really said:

I posted, not too long ago, my proof of the Cosmological Argument using
the logic of sets. Here

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thr...

and here

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thr...
.

"Whispers in the Storm" alone even replied to it, and did not refute
it. It is the first necessary step towards establishing, via Reason,
God's Existence and some of His Necessary Properties. It establishes
His Existence beyond any reasonable doubt.

It would be good to be able to move on, as I have been attempting to
do, to establishing that the Necessary Existent must have the property
of Life. But it seems there is a continual obstacle that keeps coming
up. The more I want to invoke the Necessary Existent as in fact
necessary, in order that we may begin establishing some of its
necessary properties, the more it seems that more atheists keep popping
up saying they didn't accept the first step!

(end quote)

Now, after this, I clarified what I meant by equating the Necessary
Existent with God. I admit that it is a little unclear in the above,
since I stated in the above, "It establishes
His Existence beyond any reasonable doubt." What I meant by that is
that the argument I gave established the Necessary Existent beyond any
reasonable doubt; which, it has been generally conceded, it does. I
equate the Necessary Existent with God, as a matter of what I
understand to be the case. So from my perspective, having shown that
something is Necessary, I believe I have shown the existence of God. To
be perfectly clear, existence alone does not establish Him as the God
of Christianity. In order to resemble that God, the Necessary Existent
would also have to possess the attributes of Life and Consciousness and
Love, none of which is proven by the Cosmological Argument, at least
insofar as it has been presented.

It is my belief, and my intention to go as far as possible towards
proving, that the Necessary Existent is the God of Christianity. In
order to do so, in this part of the argument, I intend to establish
beyond reasonable doubt some of the properties of a Necessary Entity,
which is first and fundamentally what God Is. The first and most
necessary property of such an entity is its existence, and that has
been established, but not fully, because some are now positing an
infinite regress of non-necessary entities, which will have to be
addressed.

In any case: it is my firm conviction that the selfsame Necessary
Existent which has been admitted as proved by at least some here will
turn out to be God, and that is what I meant by making my statement
above that "[The Cosmological Argument] establishes
His Existence beyond any reasonable doubt."

>
>
>
> >
> > > I think we can drop "god" from
> > > the discussion except if someone invokes it as "fact".
> >
> > In marked contrast to Big Bang theory, the subject of God is directly
> > on-topic. I don't care at all about "god," we can drop "god" if you
> > like. I would prefer it in fact.
>
> You started this thread. If you read your own title you might notice it
> says nothing about "god" and everything about science.

And yet, your contributions to it have not even addressed science at
all.

> Furthermore, it
> is you who has brought science into the forum and on multiple
> occasions. And, as an addendum to you thinking you're clever: I think
> we can drop God from the discussion except if someone invokes Him as
> "fact".

It will not be possible to drop God from the discussions on this forum.
My "Question for physicists," while off-topic in isolation, was
intended in the context of "Atheism vs Christianity." I was looking for
alternatives to Big Bang Cosmology.

[Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God]

Joseph, forget talking, publish the Constitution

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

Yeah - I've read that, but I thought there was more to the idea. But,
as I said, I only scanned the paper.

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

Just curious - but is there any merit to the idea that time appears to
be a linear phenomenon only to us? I know physics says time travels in
a linear fashion but are there any theories that suggest otherwise?
Praise God (that was the religious content).

[scooter]

Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > >
> > > > That is
> > > > the difference between your assertions and the scientific theory of the
> > > > Big Bang. One theory is based on facts while your "First Cause" has to
> > > > be God" nonsense is based on nothing.
> > >
> > > Except that I have advanced that only as my personal belief, and have
> > > not claimed to have proven it. What I have proven so far is that there
> > > must be a Necessary Existent - whatever it might be - and currently, I
> > > am working on proving that it cannot be an infinite regress of
> > > contingencies.
> >
> > Oh no. You specifically have said, and I quote: "The Cosmological Proof
> > of God has been established. It is at the links
> > given above, on this very forum. Let someone refute it if they can. Not
> >
> > too much to ask, I think."
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/browse_frm/thread/435d3fef76248684?scoring=d&
> >
> > Only after someone "refuted" did you then change your tune.
>
> That is actually bad quoting on your part. Here is what I really said:
>
> I posted, not too long ago, my proof of the Cosmological Argument using
> the logic of sets. Here

NO. I quoted the ENTIRE paragraph. And, if you scroll down to the
bottom of this post you will see the ENTIRE paragraph in which you
state, and I QUOTE: "The Cosmological Proof of God has been

established. It is at the links
given above, on this very forum. Let someone refute it if they can. Not

too much to ask, I think."

Here is the individual message link:

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/bbddb7500011296c

Scroll down to the last paragraph to see your own words.

Please. You are backpeddling. That is not the first time you proclaimed
"proof" of god. For more "proof" of your dishonesty here's another link
wherin you number and underscore that you _can_ prove God's existance.
I quote:

"shipmodeler1 wrote:
> Agreed. If we could prove God's existence, faith would be meaningless.

Joseph replies:

Except:

1. We _can_ prove God's Existence, and
2. Faith is not meaningless."

End Quote

Link:

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/679efb5306ae8737

>
> It is my belief, and my intention to go as far as possible towards
> proving, that the Necessary Existent is the God of Christianity. In
> order to do so, in this part of the argument, I intend to establish
> beyond reasonable doubt some of the properties of a Necessary Entity,
> which is first and fundamentally what God Is. The first and most
> necessary property of such an entity is its existence, and that has
> been established, but not fully, because some are now positing an
> infinite regress of non-necessary entities, which will have to be
> addressed.
>
> In any case: it is my firm conviction that the selfsame Necessary
> Existent which has been admitted as proved by at least some here will
> turn out to be God, and that is what I meant by making my statement
> above that "[The Cosmological Argument] establishes
> His Existence beyond any reasonable doubt."
>
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > I think we can drop "god" from
> > > > the discussion except if someone invokes it as "fact".
> > >
> > > In marked contrast to Big Bang theory, the subject of God is directly
> > > on-topic. I don't care at all about "god," we can drop "god" if you
> > > like. I would prefer it in fact.
> >
> > You started this thread. If you read your own title you might notice it
> > says nothing about "god" and everything about science.
>
> And yet, your contributions to it have not even addressed science at
> all.

The Big Bang is science and I think Rapp and PD have addresed the
fundamentals of Big Bang Cosmology sufficiently. Moreover, there is
really no need to reapeat the same things over and over to you since
you do not accept facts that disagree with your bizaare explanations
for red shift and gravity.

>
> > Furthermore, it
> > is you who has brought science into the forum and on multiple
> > occasions. And, as an addendum to you thinking you're clever: I think
> > we can drop God from the discussion except if someone invokes Him as
> > "fact".
>
> It will not be possible to drop God from the discussions on this forum.
> My "Question for physicists," while off-topic in isolation, was
> intended in the context of "Atheism vs Christianity." I was looking for
> alternatives to Big Bang Cosmology.

The Big Bang is science and as long as you are going to try and attack
science because of your paranoia, no one is going to "drop" the Big
Bang from any discussion either. That is rather the point I was making.
You obviously are threatened by many scientific theories because you
seem to think they are relevant to the existance or non-existance of
your god. That is why you bring them up.

[James Barlow]

Thank you, Scooter.

JB (author of "Argumentum Regardum Deum Againum")

scooter <kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

[James Barlow]

Time appears linear to us by analogy. For me, it is cyclic. I agree with Nietzsche's analysis here. JB

Red_Pill_Blue_Pill <TomAnd...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

[James Barlow]

Yes, if anyone can cite the paper Hawking wrote or where on the internet to find it, where he asserts the possibility of a beginningless universe, I would be grateful to see it. JB

Red_Pill_Blue_Pill <TomAnd...@gmail.com> wrote:

---

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

[James Barlow]

After examining Joseph’s argumentation in the form he recommends at the websites given and stewing about them for a day or two, I’ve decided to break down the various Levels (there are four of them) into numbered statements (propositions) in order to grasp more fully what the argumentation actually says. It is recommended as well that “I would ask that the reader fully agree with everything on level one before proceeding to level two, and so on and so forth with subsequent levels. I expect that I will find it far easier to answer objections if this procedure is adhered to.” Inasmuch as I have sought to do this, delaying objections I might have to methodology and definitions, by utilizing the Levels as sets of suppositions one can still see why the argument does not do what it purports it has done.

Access to this description of levels as well as the conversations with “Whispers in the Wind,” Thomas Robert Malthus and Lion of Judah can be found at the websites Joseph Geloso has suggested we turn to find the posts that show the argument. Without repeating everything available there, I note that:

Level One is described as “Ideaspace: First division of Ideaspace into possibilities and impossibilities.”

[1] “Ideaspace is the set of all ideas, including both notions and concepts, where notion means a loosely- or vaguely-defined idea, and concept means a fully- or clearly-defined idea.”

[2] “Ideaspace includes all that can possibly be talked about, since we only ever talk about what we think about (unless we’re speaking in tongues or in the grip of some delirium or other).”

[3] “Since Ideaspace contains both notions and concepts, and since notions may possibly contain contradictions [since vaguely defined?], and since

[4] reality can contain no contradictions,

[5] it follows that Ideaspace may contain some ideas which are impossibilities.”

[6] “An impossibility is an idea that contains a contradiction.”

[7] “Apart from containing a contradiction, I do not find any other condition that prevents possibility for an idea.”

[8] “So the whole of Ideaspace may be divided into possibilities and impossibilities.”

Level Two further divides possibilities into existents and nonexistents.

[9] Not all possibilities become realities. (“There is nothing intrinsically impossible about a unicorn, for instance; nonetheless, I do not expect that any specimens will turn up any time soon, because they are most likely fictitious.”)

[10] “Of all possibilities, some are instantiated in reality, and these I call existents.”

[11] Possibilities not substantiated in reality are called nonexistents.

[12] “In addition to these possibilities that happen to be nonexistent, there is also the entire set of impossibilities which contains only nonexistents.”

[13] “Since an impossibility cannot possibly exist, it follows simply that none of them {i.e. [12]} do exist.”

Level Three is a further division of existents, into contingent ones and necessary ones, with more commentary on nonexistents.

[14] Contingent existents are existents that “depend for their existence on certain conditions.”

[15] “These conditions themselves will always be particular configurations of other existents, which in turn may be contingent upon other conditions.”

[16] “Since there can be no infinite regress in the chain of contingencies, it stands to reason that there must be at least one necessary existent: I.e.,

[17] The set of necessary existents is necessarily non-empty.”

[18] The existents may be divided into contingent existents and necessary existents.

[19] “Some nonexistents do not exist because they cannot possibly exist” {Impossibilities}

[20] Some nonexistents do not exist “because the requisite conditions for their existence simply have not as yet come about (nor need they ever necessarily come about).”

[21] “These possibilities whose conditions have not come about…fall into the class of contingents.”

[22] Contingents whose conditions have come about and which exist are in the class of contingents.

Level Four is simply subtitled, “God”:

[23] “God is defined as a necessary existent.”

[24] To say “God is defined as a necessary existent”[23] is not to assert that “God necessarily exists.”

[25] To say “God is defined as a necessary existent”[23] is to assert “that if He exists at all, then He exists necessarily.”

[26] “It is impossible that God should exist contingently.”

[27] Either God exists necessarily {‘necessarily exists’}or God is impossible.

[28] If God is not impossible, then God exists.

In the series of postings in response to questions the websites present, some key concepts of J.G.’s argument are developed further. In answer to the question of “why can’t there be an infinite regress in a chain of contingencies?”, it is given that [29:] “Contingency is relative to necessity. Thus, for an oak tree to grow, a viable acorn is a relative necessity. The acorn itself is contingent, of course, on a previous oak, which itself grew from an acorn, and so on. This is an example of cyclic causality, and of course the whole system is contingent upon certain necessities as well, like DNA, and Earth.” Then the explanatory concept of “relative necessities” is introduced: “Just as causes are logically prior to their effects, so are relative necessities logically prior to their contingents. Thus in any search for relative necessities, I may stop at any point that I am satisfied, and identify that condition as the prime necessity.

[30:] “Prime necessity here is the equivalent of first cause in a discussion of causality.”

“If, in the case of the oak trees, I am satisfied with the explanation, ‘the ecosystem of the Earth,’ then I may assign to that the position of prime necessity relative to the existence of oak. Without the Earth, or at least some place like it, no oak could ever have come about.”

What is the difference between a “relative necessity” and a “prime necessity”?

“However, if then I ask, ‘how did the Earth come about?,’ then obviously I can no longer assign prime necessity to the Earth’s ecosystem – I must move it back, perhaps to the formation of planets in whatever ways they were formed. In every case I must either be satisfied for my purposes of requiring an explanation or I must continue the search, and in every case, when my search is ended, I can assign to the foundation of all these contingencies the position of prime necessity.”

In considering the conceivability of an ‘infinite chain of contingencies,’ the concept of ‘prime necessity’ is refined.

“Now I must ask, what can we mean by an infinite chain of contingencies? If by it we mean a chain of contingencies supported by no prime necessity, then I submit, none of them could ever have come about. By definition, the whole chain from beginning to end depends upon its first link, and if there is no first link, then there can be no chain. [31:] There cannot be the whole series of contingencies which depends upon a nonexistent prime necessity.”

In arguing against the notion of an infinite number of contingencies in a chain, which would render a “prime necessity” impossible, it is laid down that “infinite does not name a number,” and according to the definition of “prime necessity,” is “a something definite, then it can be counted.” Therefore the prime or ultimate necessity, conceived as first or last in a chain of contingencies, cannot be an uncountable something. And “infinite is not the name of a number.”

In answer to the question, “Why define God as necessarily existent?”, it is answered that (1) there is no other meaningful definition of God, (2) the author is not interested in proving the existence of a God who is not so defined, and (3) if the essence of God is existence, then He must exist – (i.e., if He does). Finally, (4) [32:] “Existence necessarily exists, and Existence is the basis for all existents. Thus a God who was not necessarily existent, I do not think could reasonably be called ‘God’.”

As peculiarly medieval and naïve as all of this might sound, these are classic formulations and modes of thought presented as ways of assuring oneself of the existence of God down through the ages. J.G.’s argument(s) are actually a conflation of the cosmological and ontological proofs, rendered famous by saints Aquinas and Anselm, respectively.

“Existence necessarily exists, and existence is the basis of all existents [32].” This seems as obviously so as it is breathtaking in its simplicity. ‘Everyone knows that there is such a thing as Reality, that there are existing things.’ But this is different from an assertion which says, “Were it not for ‘Existence’ (the idea, concept, notion) nothing could exist, therefore ‘existence is the basis of all existents’.” So that “Existence necessarily exists,” which is just another way of saying something self-evident and obvious: ‘Reality is real,’ ‘what is, is’ and so on. “Existence exists” either means just this simple formula striving to provide meaning to the ostensible (and what is obviously true) or it is an attempt to give the meaning of the word “existence” some prior ontological (and logical) status as the basis of all existing things. After all, isn’t this all about concepts and their definitions in an abode called “Ideaspace” (Level One)? For example, to say that something or other could not exist without the existence of something else is to realize that second thing is ‘necessary’ for the first. For x to be necessary for y is to say that x is that thing (state of affairs, cause, set of preconditions, etc.) without which y would not exist. But “Necessity is necessarily necessary”: that says something else.

“Contingency is relative to necessity. [29]” What does this mean? JG writes: “Thus, for an oak tree to grow, a viable acorn is a relative necessity. The acorn itself is contingent, of course, on a previous oak, which itself grew from an acorn, and so on.” An acorn is necessary for there to be an oak. In fact it is absolutely necessary. Why then is an acorn described as a “*relative* necessity” for the existence of an oak? Because it is also contingent, contingent upon the prior existence of the oak from which it came. There are other relative necessities that are contingencies, which are necessary for an oak’s coming to be as an oak: earth, water, etc. If we think of sets of conditions necessary for the existence of a thing we can think of what was necessary for their ‘relative necessities’ to come into being, and so on. 

Returning to Level Three ([14]-[22], above), one way to understand [29] is to realize the following: If any existent requires for its existence a set of conditions, that existent is a contingent one. Therefore even a necessary existent, if it is necessary for the existence of contingencies, requires these contingencies to need the necessary existent for their own existence necessarily. Thus for any existent to be defined as “necessary” it requires those contingencies upon its existence by means of which it is thought necessary. In this way, even a necessary existent is contingent upon its contingencies for the realization of its status as a necessity for their existence and definition as contingencies.

“Just as causes are logically prior to their effects, so are relative necessities prior to their contingents. Thus in any search for relative necessities, I may stop at the point that I am satisfied, and identify that condition as the prime necessity.” Which is to say e.g. that,

{A.} A relative necessity for the possible existence of the concept “God” in Ideaspace is the existence (‘instantiated in reality’ [10]) of humanity on Earth. (Because Ideaspace is comprised of human thought by definition ([1], [2])).

{B} The prime necessity for the possible existence of the concept “God” in Ideaspace is the existence of Reality itself. (Because human life and its Ideaspace would not contingently exist without the existence of Reality, and “There cannot be the whole series of contingencies which depends upon a nonexistent prime necessity” [34].)

I think of the concept, “God,” in Ideasapce (its only abode according to this system) analogously with the oak used as an example. At one time the concept was merely an acorn of a concept, so to speak. But it required certain nutrients and conditions (contingencies) in order for it to become what it is today, the God of metaphysicians. The concept Yahweh, from which the God of metaphysicians and Christian theology was finally derived, did not at one time in the past include the formal ascription of attributes comprising His definition today, just as God as a concept alone was nearly unthinkable. Back in those days He was a tribal deliverer, as most gods were, and not quite the Sustainer and Creator of everything. Part of the purpose of the book of Genesis was to answer the typical skeptical objection that God is a human invention. But to show that “the idea of God could only come from God” you must presuppose to be true what you seek to prove.

Consider [9] above (in Level Two). At least in the case of unicorns, isn’t this akin to saying that some possibilities that will never become realities are nevertheless not intrinsically impossible? How can something that will never become a reality not be intrinsically impossible? Doesn’t “intrinsically impossible” mean “will never become really existent”?

Consider the bulk of Level Three ([14]-[22], above). Why can’t the Reality into which all possibilities are instantiated as existents comprise “the set of necessary existents,” since the set is necessary for all contingencies? If any existent requires for its existence a set of conditions, that existent is a contingent one. Therefore even a necessary existent, if it is necessary for the existence of contingencies, requires these contingencies to need the necessary existent for their own existence necessarily. Thus for any existent to be defined as “necessary,” it requires those contingencies upon its existence by means of which it is thought necessary. In this way, even a necessary existent is contingent upon its contingencies for the realization of its status as a necessity for their existence and definition as contingencies.

The definition of God ranks it as a clear concept, and not merely a notion, in Ideaspace (it is asserted). But this concept of God, as defined, is contingent upon a number of cultural (relative) necessities that are themselves entirely contingent. Take the concept of the god Diana, or “Artemis of Ephesus” (as recorded in the biblical Acts of the Apostles), for instance. Here was a deity of first century Asia Minor of whom its believers had a clearly defined concept at the same time surely not doubting the god’s necessary existence. Likewise with our concept of God and His attributes. The contingencies, cultural and historical, that gave birth to the diety’s existence as a concept in Ideaspace are fairly well-known. Now, “the whole of Ideaspace may be divided into possibilities and impossibilities [8],” so because God is a concept and more than a mere notion [1],[3], as defined, we submit that He is not an impossibility. But as an idea in Ideaspace, the concept of God is contingent upon the thought of God’s existence, for as a thought in Ideaspace this thought did not suddenly pop into existence “ex nihilo.” Indeed, it is a human thought (according to the definition of Ideaspace at [1]-[5]). For there once was a time in Reality when human beings and thus Ideaspace itself did not exist, so unless the concept of God existed before anyone was around to think the concept of Him, the idea of God is contingent upon its realization in Ideaspace [10], [14]. Just as there once was a time when the god Artemis of Ephesus was a concept in Ideaspace, a real possibility [15], though apparently now is an impossibility [11].

Now consider [6], “An impossibility is an idea that contains a contradiction,” in terms of [24]: “To say ‘God is defined as a necessary existent [23]’ is not to assert that ‘God necessarily exists’,” along with [27], “Either God exists necessarily or God is impossible.” We have seen that God indeed has been defined in the nomenclature of Ideaspace in such a way that He is a necessary existent. But the definition of something is not what that thing *is*, only the use of concepts to explicate what it means to say what that thing is. Nonexistent things may also be defined in such and such a way, and we grant the definition for the sake of understanding what the word being defined means, and this has nothing to do with the evidential value of a claim that said thing exists or not. So we read [24]: To define God as a necessary existent (in the land of Ideaspace where all definitions are made and have their applicability) is not to assert the necessary existence of God. On top of this we get [27], which says that either God exists necessarily or God is impossible. Followed by, since God is not impossible He must exist necessarily. Briefly forgotten in this interlude is the latent, contradictory nature of the thought which seeks to legitimately combine (in this system) the conclusion that God exists necessarily with the thought that a definition of God as a necessary existent does not mean He actually exists [24]. That is to say, the conclusion that God exists necessarily because His existence is not impossible [29] is argued for in part on the basis of an insight that His definitional status as a necessary existent does not imply that he necessarily exists. Thus even though it is not impossible that God exists, from this it can’t be derived that God necessarily exists, if the premise is correct which says that His definition of necessarily existing doesn’t entail His necessary existence. I.e.,

a0 If God exists, then He necessarily exists

a1 If God is not impossible, then God exists necessarily

a2 The concept of God does not imply God exists necessarily

a3 God is a necessary existent, in our concept of God.

a4 To say that God exists necessarily is not to say He necessarily exists,

and all of this taken together amounts to a contradiction, for we are only dealing with concepts here, even the concepts of necessity, exists, necessary existent, and so on. If the argument on the whole is valid and its conclusion is true, then “God is a necessary existent “ is true, since if He exists He exists necessarily. But God as a necessary existent, so accurately defined, does not mean that God exists [24]. And if the argument (thought) contains a contradiction, it is by definition an impossible idea, for [6]. For the idea that a definition of something does not amount to proof of its existence and the notion that the definition of something requires its necessary existence is a contradictory thought.

Part of the problem in all of this has to do with necessity versus contingency. For to say that “If God exists, then He necessarily exists, and is a necessary existent” is to deny the whole procedural machinery of the Ideaspace and the origin of ideas in terms of their contingency upon other contingencies, and relative necessities (as anyone can show). And this meets the criterion for establishing an ultimate or prime necessity even by the criteria JG accords his system: We may stop anywhere while tracing the contingencies behind any existent thing as soon as we reach a satisfying result. Recognizing that the concept of God resides in Ideaspace and found its origin in Reality, Reality as the prime necessity, seems satisfying enough. In JG’s own words: “In every case I must either be satisfied for my purposes of requiring an explanation or I must continue the search, and in every case, when my search is ended, I can assign the foundation of all these contingencies the position of prime necessity.”

If all of the propositions of the Levels One-Four are strictly adhered to, it would seem that there is little other choice. Atleast not in THIS…Ideaspace.

James Barlow

{otherson the unarguably indefatiguable}

p.s. [4] “Reality can contain no contradictions…”

Joseph Geloso <jose...@hotmail.com> wrote:

scooter wrote:
> Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > scooter wrote:
> > > Joseph Geloso wrote:
> > > > James Barlow wrote:

[Red_Pill_Blue_Pill]

James Barlow wrote:
> Yes, if anyone can cite the paper Hawking wrote or where on the internet to find it, where he asserts the possibility of a beginningless universe, I would be grateful to see it. JB
>

Here's something James. Its not the actual paper but it is a good
discussion:

http://everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

[Joseph Geloso]

O.K, I stand corrected. I did say "God." I proved the Necessary
Existent, which to me is God. If you think it is not God, then
differentiate them.

So, I believe we can prove God's existence. Is that a proof? No. Did I
say it was a proof? No.

But not you. You are just a troll in this thread.

> Moreover, there is
> really no need to reapeat the same things over and over to you since
> you do not accept facts that disagree with your bizaare explanations
> for red shift and gravity.

Why do you care?

>
>
> >
> > > Furthermore, it
> > > is you who has brought science into the forum and on multiple
> > > occasions. And, as an addendum to you thinking you're clever: I think
> > > we can drop God from the discussion except if someone invokes Him as
> > > "fact".
> >
> > It will not be possible to drop God from the discussions on this forum.
> > My "Question for physicists," while off-topic in isolation, was
> > intended in the context of "Atheism vs Christianity." I was looking for
> > alternatives to Big Bang Cosmology.
>
> The Big Bang is science

As in, a scientific theory, yes.

> and as long as you are going to try and attack
> science because of your paranoia, no one is going to "drop" the Big
> Bang from any discussion either.

Do you have anything to contribute, or are you just a cranky troll?

> That is rather the point I was making.
> You obviously are threatened by many scientific theories because you
> seem to think they are relevant to the existance or non-existance of
> your god. That is why you bring them up.

I asked a question of the physicists here because I wanted an answer
from physicists. You don't like it, so you troll my post. Big whoop.

[James Barlow]

Joseph Geloso and interlocutor  wrote:

> That is rather the point I was making.
> You obviously are threatened by many scientific theories because you
> seem to think they are relevant to the existance or non-existance of
> your god. That is why you bring them up.

       I asked a question of the physicists here because I wanted an answer
       from physicists. You don't like it, so you troll my post. Big whoop.

 

 

Gentlemen: If JG seeks to do apologetics from a metaphysical standpoint leaning on physics to do so what of it?  And besides, whose to say God does not love trolls, too?

(btw, we have shown the Prime Minister the instruments of torture but the secular arm decided to have him shot.) JB

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.

[James Barlow]

Thanks much. JB

Red_Pill_Blue_Pill <TomAnd...@gmail.com> wrote:

[scooter]

I have already done that (repeatedly) with no response from you on
other threads. I want to know how you get from completely natural cause
and effect deductive reasoning and end up at a "neccessary
existant/first cause" that is "supernatural". The logic does not
follow.

You also "did not say" I BELIEVE. Instead, you said "1. We _can_ prove
God's Existence". That is not a statement of "belief". But, as per the
norm, your response is to lie and attempt to decieve by trying to skirt
around your own words.

Actually, as I have already pointed out to you, there is no need to
explain it to you again. I, and many others on this forum have already
given you a rudimentary understanding of the theory of the Big Bang.
What rapp and PD have pointed out to you is a very trimmed down version
of an upper division cosmology lesson. That is about all you're going
to get in this venue.

>
> > Moreover, there is
> > really no need to reapeat the same things over and over to you since
> > you do not accept facts that disagree with your bizaare explanations
> > for red shift and gravity.
>
> Why do you care?

I'll tell you why I care. Because people like you are a plague on
society. Spewing nonsense and influencing young children into believing
fallacies in an attempt to perpetuate your fantasy. You would impede
the progress of humanity, fill those around you with falsities and go
out of your way to twist facts and theory in a feeble attempt to
discredit science. You think that the aquisition of knowledge need not
require valid information. That's fine. Just keep it to yourself and do
not try to influence others into following you down that dead-end road.
It is irresponsable and socio-pathic.

>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Furthermore, it
> > > > is you who has brought science into the forum and on multiple
> > > > occasions. And, as an addendum to you thinking you're clever: I think
> > > > we can drop God from the discussion except if someone invokes Him as
> > > > "fact".
> > >
> > > It will not be possible to drop God from the discussions on this forum.
> > > My "Question for physicists," while off-topic in isolation, was
> > > intended in the context of "Atheism vs Christianity." I was looking for
> > > alternatives to Big Bang Cosmology.
> >
> > The Big Bang is science
>
> As in, a scientific theory, yes.
>
> > and as long as you are going to try and attack
> > science because of your paranoia, no one is going to "drop" the Big
> > Bang from any discussion either.
>
> Do you have anything to contribute, or are you just a cranky troll?

As I said, there is no need to repeat already stated facts concerning
the Big Bang. If you didn't understand them in the above posts, my
reiteration will not change that.

>
> > That is rather the point I was making.
> > You obviously are threatened by many scientific theories because you
> > seem to think they are relevant to the existance or non-existance of
> > your god. That is why you bring them up.
>
> I asked a question of the physicists here because I wanted an answer
> from physicists. You don't like it, so you troll my post. Big whoop.

Actually, I do like it. Furthermore, I particularly enjoy making you
look like an idiot. Why? Because I care. I care about the truth and the
condition of humanity. And, as the lies and deceipt in your past posts
have shown, you have no regard for either.

[James Barlow]

scooter <kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:Actually, I do like it. Furthermore, I particularly enjoy making you

---

All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[James Barlow]

scooter <kwi...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:I have already done that (repeatedly) with no response from you on