1- Is Einstein wrong?
About the creation or destruction of matter? Of course, because we now know that the present matter/energy has probably not existed indefinitely and so must have at some point been created (and certain theoretical experiments have proposed other methods of creating or destroying matter/energy).
O- Theoretical? Well then that is far from enough to give you “we now know”.
Quote:
2- Suppose we determine a set, say “planets”.
3- These planets are contained within another set, say a “solar system”.
4- These sets are contained in yet a larger set we call the “universe”.
5- This set is further contained by God.
Since we can only observe the sets contained withing the set universe, why bother speculating about what lays beyond it? What support do you have that such a set which contains the universe exists?
O- I don’t, and I was only trying to repeat the same point yopu made and say it as much in my last post.
Quote:
*6- But God can be reasonable made an individual of yet another set and that set which contains God, further be reasoned to belong to another set and this can continue without end without violating itself.
Nope. If God exists then he is omnipresent and infinite.
O- To a christian perhaps, but to the gnostics that was hardly the case. Besides the point here is that once you introduce what is beyond nature, you have no reason to stop adding to whatever exist…including God #1 out of N.
No set can be greater than him as it would contradict his nature.
O_ It contradict the definition of the concept and nothing more. It offends the vanity of man…especially christian man.
Quote:
7- We do not expand the Circle eternally, but all circles are formed arbitraerly, as if ad hoc. The expansion can and would continue and is only kept in check by concepts like nature, God or universe, all abstractions of the expansion which eludes our experience, leaving out and forgetting or worse denying and delusional what there is.
Of course, i would say that these abstractions are based on the universe as it is perceived
O- Perceive as of now, not absolutetly perceived but provicionally. Thus, what there is or may be, IS dependent on what can be perceived.
Quote:
Last. The biggest philosophical problem is the demonstration that something can come from nothing.
The problem is that again we can regress in the chain of being, yet the end of the rope is a simple nut we tie and say: “that is God. There shall be no more regress”.
Whether we end in God or in Nature or in some Mover, we still can theorize about what was there before.
Nope, we cannot.
O- Yes we can and have. Sorry if you do not like it.
“Before” is a temporal concept, and time BEGAN at the big bang. There was no “before” the big bang and hence there can be no cause to it.
O- That is the dogma of the theory not the proof.
Quote:
Consider the ban Once…some 20 years ago, considered as almost true. Yet now the Bang is but a theory within a larger M-Theory (which is itself but a compilation of theories).
You are abusing m-theory.
O- Far be it from me such heresy.
(Presumably) it will explain the mechanics of how the big bang happened, but i see no support for how it will detail what ‘caused’ it.
O- Did I say anything about whatr caused it? My point is that it may just convince, not prove, the eternity of the universe.
Personally I could never take in the dogma of the Big Bang and feel that even if the M-theory is abandoned, only something similar might convince me. I can only use as my defense the fact that we reason in “categories”, and that one might require such concepts as time and space if the universe is to be declared rational.
