DHPG: The Big Problem: A Three-Stage Refutation of the (Atheistic) Big Bang Theory

DHPG: THE BIG PROBLEM: A THREE-STAGE REFUTATION OF (ATHEISTIC) BIG BANG THEORY
(I’m new to doing this, so if I veer off track I apologise, but I ask you to please consider it as a measure of my debating capacity regardless. I’m also aware what I am going to say will be at conflict with the majority of the Debate Hall member’s beliefs, considering they are mostly atheists, but I also ask you please look beyond this also in order to give me an accurate assessment. I also didn't know how to reference properly on this site, so I just put numbers in brackets).

In this article, Nuckols attempts to discard evolution as an overhyped theory, lacking significant evidence and possessing several logical flaws. Although ultimately, the Debate Hall community concluded that his argument was scientifically flawed, It is my inclination to believe that while this certainly may be true, certain fundamental points expressed in the article were in fact correct, albeit portrayed poorly. In response to Nuckols’ article, this paper will attempt to defend the aforementioned fundamental premises, albeit with a more specific focus- that (atheistic) Big Bang Theory is flawed. Be warned, that the paper will predominately call upon philosophical rather than scientific methodology, and will employ a three-stage structure, with the stages becoming increasingly more significant to the argument in the order they are read.

Perhaps the most convincing point of Nuckols' argument is this:

“Thus, the theory of evolution should be questioned closely by more scientists and not treated like a scientific law, because there is very little evidence for it.”(1)

1. Intelligent Design
Cicero- “When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?"

G. K. Chesterton in 1908: "So one elephant having a trunk was odd; but all elephants having trunks looked like a plot."

We begin with an Intelligent Design argument. It is importnat to note that while relevant, this is not the core of the work, but functions rather as a 'side-dish' to the two latter stages.

Nuckols, like most creationists, forwards an Intelligent Design proposition to further strengthen his argument:

“One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems. According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an “irreducibly complex system” cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an “irreducibly complex system” will result in non-functionality (1996). This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail. The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing.”(2)

From all reports, his argument is logically flawed on various levels. It is not my intention to debate this reception, but rather propose an alternate Intelligent Design argument, hopefully attaining a more positive reception at that. Most intelligent design arguments explore the design of the universe, suggesting that its complexity requires a designer; my argument focuses not so much on the design of the universe, but rather that of humans.

My Intelligent Design argument orbits around the premise that humans are distinct from animals. This is not evidenced by the fact that humans are more intelligent or developed, but rather that they possess traits that would appear completely unrelated to the evolutionary process, traits that are unnecessary or even possibly hinder adaption to the environment, survival of the fittest, and the continuation of the species. For example, why humans display religious and/or spiritual capacities makes no sense in relation to evolution. If anything, religious tendencies have lead humans to act in ways contrary to that of animals. Humans are the only living creatures on Earth who possess the ability to evaluate one’s own actions, and possess the capacity to a moral conscience or sense of regret (outside of being punished for an action).

If humans are simply advanced apes, then why have we developed methods of actually reducing our numbers seemingly pointlessly? Practices such as abortion, the invention of the pill, and changes in cultural views of sexual morality have actually leaded to a steady decline in the population. Statistics have shown that for a civilization to last more than 25 years, it must produce at least 2.11 children per couple. Interestingly, a rate of 1.8 children per couple has never been reversed in history, and 1.3 is impossible to reverse. Nearly all developed Europoean countries are under 2(3) . To illustrate my point, imagine a civilization of one hundred people, split into fifty couples, and they each have one child each. Only 50% of the previous generation is born, and that’s assuming every adult in a civilization pairs off and successfully reproduces, which we know is not the case in reality.

The question of occurrences such as serial killers also arises. Whilst understood as a psychological corruption, tendencies such as this are not witnessed in the animal kingdom. Sure killings occur as a result of hunting, self-defense, defense-of territory, competitiveness etc. but none are fueled by sadistic desire. Why is it that humans, allegedly the most evolved species of them all, have the capacity to arguably the lowest act one can conceive of?

Aristotle attempted to answer that question is his Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argued that every entity has a form, and the fulfillment of that form lead to that entity’s goodness. In other words, it is good for a lion to prey, because that is what is good for a lion. For humans, the pursuit of eudaemonia (meaning happiness, not as a subjective feeling, but as on objective state, such as the fulfillment of life, or flourishing) is what is good for humans, which is predominately achieved through the exhibition of virtue. According to Aristotle, what distinguishes us from animals is that we have the potential to be otherwise than our own nature(4) . What that means is that an animal can only do what is good for it, what is natural, but humans can act in ways which would be considered inhumane, or unnatural, thus where we get our concept of moral good and evil, and why it is said only humans possess morality. This explains why we look down upon the rampant pursuit of excessive luxury and pleasure, because it lowers one to the desires of animals, yet we consider a serial killer on a far worse level than the greedy, because the sadistic killing of multiple humans is even lower than the level of animals.

My point in presenting these premises is to address the question that if evolution is to exist, why then do we possess the potential to be otherwise than our own nature, when it is completely exclusive to humans, and serves no benefit in an evolutionary sense.





2. “They do not know where this energy came from or why it took place.”
The second phase of my argument concerns the notion (in an atheistic account) that something can come from nothing. For these final two phases, I will be referring to Thomas Aquinas’ Five ways, not in their entirety, but merely the points relevant to my arguments. Below, Aquinas addresses the principles of actuality and potentiality:

Aquinas 1st Way- Argument from Change
 Certain things in the world are in motion.
 Everything in motion is moved by something else.
 Nothing is in motion except in so far as it is in potentiality in relation to that towards which it is in motion.
 If something causes motion, it is in actuality, for to cause motion is to change something from potentiality to actuality.
 Something cannot be in potentiality and actuality referring to the same thing at the same time.
 Impossible that something causes itself to move.
 Everything in motion must be moved by something else.
 Infinite causes is impossible, for if there is no first mover there can be no secondary movers which can only be moved by a first mover(5).

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that it suggests that something came from nothing, when in fact there was no such potentiality to allow such a phenomena to occur. ‘Nothingness’ is not to be confused with an empty black void, for that already presumes space and time, true nothingness has no space, time, concepts of matter and motion, no laws of nature etc. As soon as one attempts to bridge the gap between nothing to something, they are immediately presuming some form of potentiality that was in fact not there, for in true nothingness there is no potentiality.

A common counter is that the first motion or the ‘something’ occurred by means of randomness. This initially sounds plausible, until one acknowledges that randomness itself is not catalyst, but rather the method in which the catalyst acts. For example, if I have a basket with apples inside of it, and I choose to select an apple at random, randomness does not determine the number of apples inside the basket (i.e. the potentiality), but merely determines the method of selection that I apply. What we see is that for randomness to the govern the first motion, there must already have been some form of potentiality present, which the Big Bang Theory is still yet to account for. Essentially, the concept of randomness itself is an actuality, meaning that it requires to be caused by a prior actuality in order for it to exist.

In the case that one discards my argument that randomness requires a prior potentiality to exist (which I’m sure most of you will), allow us explore the consequences of such a rejection. If we were to say that everything originated out of pure nothingness, we then have a contradiction with regards to the form of potentiality. For if everything was to come from nothing, then we are essentially saying that nothingness equals infinite, unrestricted potentiality. The problem with this notion is that it is evident that potentiality is not in fact infinite, but limited, for if potentiality was infinite, I would not be restricted to/by my human form.





3. The Problem of Time
To explore this avenue, we now turn our attention to Thomas Aquinas on Samuel Clarke for a brief commentary on the infinite regress of time:

Aquinas 2nd Way- Argument from causation.
 Something cannot be the efficient cause of itself, for it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.
 However, it is impossible to proceed to infinity with efficient causes, for the first cause is the cause of the intermediate cause/s, and the intermediate is the cause of the last. To remove the first cause would be to remove the effect, which is the intermediate cause, which would remove the last(6).
Samuel Clarke
 Infinite regression is impossible because an infinite succession of dependant beings without any original independent cause is a series of beings that has neither necessity nor any reason at all of its existence, neither within itself nor from without. It proposes that something is caused, yet that in the whole it is caused by absolutely nothing.

It is impossible to count up from zero to infinity, so it is impossible to count down from infinity to zero. Infinity is also indivisible; this is all because it is impossible to traverse an infinite series. If the universe had an infinite past, then time would have had to count down from infinity to reach time zero, which is the present, and so would not have reached it. The fact that we have reached the present therefore shows that the past is not infinite but finite, proving that the universe must have had a beginning. In more simple terms, imagine X asking himself how many years had passed until the very present, to which Y responds ‘an infinite amount’. Then ten years later, X asks the same question again, to which Y gives him the same response, yet X knows there have been an extra ten years, but to say ‘infinite plus ten years’ is to reduce infinity to a finite principle, which of course is illogical.

Now that we have established (hopefully) that the infinite regress of time is implausible, and that time ‘begun’, we are presented with some complications. Because time, like space, is finite, it must have been brought into existence by a certain motion, and we know that motion can be considered some form of activity in relation to space and time. The problem I am about to present is not exclusive to Big Bang Theory, but concerns all atheistic philosophies. An athiest must assume one of two things with regards to time:

1. That the first motion occurred at some point in time.
2. That time began when the first motion occurred.

If you accept the first premise, then you have not accounted for the motion which allowed time to exist in the first place. If you accept the second premise, even if we allow motion to occur when space does not exist (although this is unlikely, because space and time are interrelated, and cannot function without each other), it is still logically flawed, because a motion cannot occur if time does not exist in the first place.

So that concludes my argument. Again, forgive me if I lost track, I attempted to relate it to the article as much as I could, and I’m aware virtually everyone at the PG and DH will disagree with pretty much everything I said, but I ask that you please look beyond that in order to assess my debating-skills as fairly as possible.

________________________________________
1. Nuckols, Lucas. “Is Evolution Science?”Creationscience Academy. 2009 <http://www.ecreationscience.com/Is_Evolutionism_Science.html>
2. Ibid.
3. Demographicproblem.wmv
4. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
5. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica
6. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

One of the biggest flaws in the argument is stage 2.

First:

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that it suggests that something came from nothing, when in fact there was no such potentiality to allow such a phenomena to occur. ‘Nothingness’ is not to be confused with an empty black void, for that already presumes space and time, true nothingness has no space, time, concepts of matter and motion, no laws of nature etc. As soon as one attempts to bridge the gap between nothing to something, they are immediately presuming some form of potentiality that was in fact not there, for in true nothingness there is no potentiality.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in Big Bang theory about something coming from nothing. That is a theist argument to debunk evolution, and it's laughable at best since theists believe the same thing. As even cursory analysis of the Big Bang shows, the origin of the universe began in a densely packed ball of matter. There is no "nothing" to eliminate this argument.

Secondly, and most importantly, the entire second section is hypocritical and contradicting. Thomas Aquinas says there has to be an origin point. The problem is this applies to god too. Also, the theoretical aspect of the big bang includes how the ball of matter and energy formed, but using the law of thermodynamics, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed," so the Big Bang's origin point has to be constantly existing.

The problem with the Big Bang Theory is that it suggests that something came from nothing,

Click to expand...

What? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is dynamic. And science does not have a definite answer for the origin of the current universe, it's more like : TBA guys, TBA.

Do we have facts and laws that hold the theory together? Yes. Just clarifying something because it really bothered me to see that.

Crimson King said:

There is nothing in Big Bang theory about something coming from nothing. That is a theist argument to debunk evolution, and it's laughable at best since theists believe the same thing.

Click to expand...

I'm not a theist, but yes my answer to this is different to that of theists, and is part of the reason why I think the theistic God is wrong. I didn't include my answer to this because I felt it was not relevant to the topic, but yes there are other God theories that don't have this problem.

Crimson King said:

As even cursory analysis of the Big Bang shows, the origin of the universe began in a densely packed ball of matter. There is no "nothing" to eliminate this argument.

Click to expand...

You're still skipping the first step of how time, space etc. were all caused to exist. It's also illogical to suggest that the original matter, which is a finite substance, could be a self-necessary entity, considering that all matter that existed afterward it is not self-necessary and is caused by a prior actuallity. So to say the world began with matter is to violate the essence of matter, it's pretty much like saying the world began with the creation, but the very essence of a creation is that it was created.

Crimson King said:

Secondly, and most importantly, the entire second section is hypocritical and contradicting. Thomas Aquinas says there has to be an origin point. The problem is this applies to god too.

Click to expand...

I don't agree with Aquinas' concept of the origin point, hence why I only used the aspeccts of his Five Ways which I felt completely correct. Aquinas' concept of the origin is theistic, which means that he feels that God relates to the earth as if it played out as chronological sequence of events, like it does for us. The problem with this is that it violates the principle of his eternity, because essentially it's saying 'there was a time before the world existed', which automatically links God with time, removing his eternity. As I mentioned previously, I have a different answer, but it's not relevant. But saying that this origin problem applies to God too is wrong. I won't tell you my answer, but a quick one is the 'eternal now' theory, which suggests that God sees all the events of the world at once, removing the issue of time.

Crimson King said:

Also, the theoretical aspect of the big bang includes how the ball of matter and energy formed, but using the law of thermodynamics, "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed," so the Big Bang's origin point has to be constantly existing.

Click to expand...

Right, but that presupposes the laws of nature already existed. Any atheistic theory has to presuppose some from of actuallity or potentaillity, such as time, space, motion, laws of nature. The argument that it 'always existed' is a way around the 'where did it come from?' problem, but then you have to suppose that time is infinite, yet we know it is not.

The idea that it began with a ball energy that always existed is just mere theory, but the claims that the universe is not of infinite time, and that matter is not a self-necessary entity are fact.

Zero Beat said:

What? Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it is dynamic. And science does not have a definite answer for the origin of the current universe, it's more like : TBA guys, TBA.

Click to expand...

As I mentioned before, you still haven't mentioned how time, space, motion, laws of nature etc. orignitated. The problem with saying it always existed is that you have to suppose infinite time, which we know is wrong.

Secondly, energy does not meet the criteria of a self-necessary entity. Only self-necessary entities do not require a prior actualltiy to be created, yet it is evident that energy is not self-necessary because it is finite, and can only exist when time space, motion etc. are in place. If anything, you should be trying to prove that time and space are self- necessary, even though they can't be either.

Zero Beat said:

Do we have facts and laws that hold the theory together? Yes. Just clarifying something because it really bothered me to see that.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I'm talking specifically about Big Bang. Secondly, you have evidence to hold some of the theory together, not all. You even just admitted you don't know the answer to the first step.

Theism for the most part is logical, if you accept their 'leap of faith', however, people like me and you who don't take that leap believe we've found fundamental flaws in it, the same goes for me and BB.

For a theory to be completely factual, it has to be perfect. The evolution theory is not perfect yet. The difference between me and you is that you're saying 'we don't know the first part entirely yet', whereas I'm saying ' I know this first part is actually a problem for your theory, not just a question who haven't got the answer for yet'.

Sorry for the double post, I know you guys like when I respond to quotes, and I didn't know how to quote from two different people in the one post.

Dre. said:

For a theory to be completely factual, it has to be perfect. The evolution theory is not perfect yet. The difference between me and you is that you're saying 'we don't know the first part entirely yet', whereas I'm saying ' I know this first part is actually a problem for your theory, not just a question who haven't got the answer for yet'.

Click to expand...

That's how a Law works. A theory is called a theory because there are holes left from making it one hundred percent true in every instance, hence why there are so few scientific laws but tons of working theories that are based on laws that are nearly 100% true all of the time, but because they are not completely finished, they are theories.

Just wanted to clarify that.

Fair enough, but I'm suggesting that there are flaws that you are either unaware of, or disagree are flaws.

The thing is now, if I ask how I went, you're always going to say it was a good try but there were plenty of flaws in it because you are of a different persuasion, but you are always going to disagree with anti-evolution theory.

So my question is what anti-evolution arguments was I suppsed to employ to win you over? (As have you think it was a good argument, not necessarily alter your belief).

Dre. said:

Fair enough, but I'm suggesting that there are flaws that you are either unaware of, or disagree are flaws.

The thing is now, if I ask how I went, you're always going to say it was a good try but there were plenty of flaws in it because you are of a different persuasion, but you are always goingt o disagree with anti-evolution theory.

So my question is what anti-evolution arguments wasI suppsed to employ to win you over?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you shouldn't use any anti-evolutionary claims @ all.

I read over your OP, and I must say that it is well written at the very least.

However, your method of attack relies a little too much on the philosophical side of things IMHO. I just took a class relating to Philosophy and the Theory of Evolution, and this is the kind of stuff that class was made of.

The one problem though: Where is your evidence? I feel that the moment you said this:

Be warned, that the paper will predominately call upon philosophical rather than scientific methodology,

Click to expand...

You lost me, and perhaps others as well.

The Big Bang theory has been touched upon with the brass, but if you can say anything about it, you can say this: At the current moment, we are unsure of what happened before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang.

Also, putting mankind on a special pedestal isn't necessarily the best way to show how ID is valid. Evolutionary Psychology, memes, and other methods show how the traits of the human mind could have possibly came to be (with research that is ongoing as well) in the context of evolution.

Don't lose heart that people aren't agreeing with you because we disagree with anything that is anti-evolution: IMHO it was really just your lack of concrete evidence.

It was still a pretty darn good read though.

You don't need science to argue against BB though.

Nuckols used science and lost.

For example, the origin of BB or something out of nothing thing will never be proven in a scientific experiment, because they'll never be able to create an experiment that removes factors such as time, space, laws of nature etc.

This is why you guys take the 'energy always existed' avenue, but I feel that this is flawed, on philosophical grounds at least, and those grounds are certainly valid.

With regards to evidence, philosophy doesn't require the same type of evidence as science does. I feel it's wrong to discredit my argument because it's based on philosophy rather than science, especially because God and plausiblity of BB are philosophicali ssues in general, sure atheists use science as a tool, but whenever one is trying to describe 'why', it becomes philosophy.

I certainly appeciate the constructive feedback though.

Edit: I think your claim of my lack of evidence is a result of it not being scientific, but I can give you three examples of non-scientific evidence that certainly have implications on atheistic BB:

1. A reported 8 million Americans have experienced out-of-body, or 'spiritual' experiences when deemed clinically dead. The most common account is that they are going through a dark tunnel, with feeling of euphoria.

2. When my godmother's father died, she had a dream in which her father said to her something in italian which she didn't understand, she'd never even heard those words before. She later found those words meant 'your soul will live on forever'.

3. A student in my Philosophy of Religion class, who is a Richard Dawkins-like atheist, went to go see a psychic who worked for the police. Now he's not stupid, this wasnt't a John Edwards, con-artist psychic who cold reads people, looking for hot leads to pursue and making two-ended statements that apply to everyone, the lady just spoke to James' dad as if he was standing right next to him and said specific things relating to his father, but James didn't even say a word the entire time, and didn't fill out a questionaire beforehand.

There are plenty more like these out there, and these are solid facts. I don't want to argue whether they are or not , that's not relevant, my point these are non-scientific, but certainly have implications on atheistic BB, suggesting that science is not the only authority in these matters.

Dre. said:

You don't need science to argue against BB though.

Click to expand...

Considering it's a scientific theory I think you do.

Nuckols used science and lost.

Click to expand...

Which could say a thing or two about the position he's taking up. If you're arguing science and you're using science and lost than I think that's an example that your science isn't sound and you're probably wrong. At least when concerning scientific truths.

For example, the origin of BB or something out of nothing thing will never be proven in a scientific experiment, because they'll never be able to create an experiment that removes factors such as time, space, laws of nature etc.

Click to expand...

You're repeating your mistakes here, earlier in this thread this point was countered twice and you have not made any attempts to refute those counters.

This is why you guys take the 'energy always existed' avenue, but I feel that this is flawed, on philosophical grounds at least, and those grounds are certainly valid.

Click to expand...

You make it sound like a bunch of scientists got together and made something up. It's a scientific law and not without good reason.

With regards to evidence, philosophy doesn't require the same type of evidence as science does. I feel it's wrong to discredit my argument because it's based on philosophy rather than science, especially because God and plausiblity of BB are philosophicali ssues in general, sure atheists use science as a tool, but whenever one is trying to describe 'why', it becomes philosophy.

Click to expand...

Why is the big bang a philosophical issue? You must define this for us. Using Philosophy to discredit science is a mistake we have evidence that the Big bang happened and evolution happened. You're asking why they happened and there probably isn't any real reason why they happened.

Furthermore philosophy still requires evidence and so far you haven't really offered us any evidence that you're right.

The God issue, or the origin of existence, is known to be a philosophical issue. Just because your theory employs science doesn't mean philosophy has no authority to challenge it.

Yes you have an answer to how something could come from nothing, but I'm saying the theory that energy always existed is implausible, because it has been shown that the infintie regress of time is illogical.

Secondly, when did science ever explain how time, space, laws of nature, laws of motion etc. originated? it only explains what happened after they were in place.

Third, regardless what science says, the above theory is flawed because energy cannot be a self-necessary entity. Energy can only exist if time, space, motion, laws of nature etc. already do, meaning it is not self-necessary. Also energy can't always have existed, because energy needs to time to exist, yet we know time didn't always exist, because it is not infinite. By starting your argument with energy always existing, your neglecting to explain how time etc. came into existence, which is what I'm saying the flaw is.

You should be trying to prove to me that time etc. are self-necessary (even though they are not). I'm not saying that once time, space etc. are in place, evolution couldn't have happened. I don't even necessarily discard the possibility of evolution occuring after being initiated by a higher being. I'm saying BB is wrong because it doesn't explaim time etc. and believes energy is self-necessary, which is philosophically flawed.

The points I'm attacking don't require science, because I'm not saying evolution isn't impossible once time etc. exist. That's what Nuckols did, and that's what you need science for.

Science explains how everything functions with those principels of time etc. are in palce. You need philosophy to explain why those principles are there in the first place. I'm only discussing the latter, and I believe BB is wrong because it doesn't explain the latter, or provides a theory which is flawed.

And what do you mean I had no evidence? I had evidence that humans are devloping practices that serve no evolutionary benefit, I had proof that time is not infinite, and that energy cannot be self-necessary, and that randomness requires potentiality etc.

Just because my proof isn't scientific doesn't mean it doesn't hold authorty. The belief that only science holds authority is scientism, which is not a universally accepted fact.

I decided to sum up in point form why Philosophy is central to this issue:

1. You addressed the apparent flaws in the second and third stages of my argument.

2. Science can only prove what happens after the universal principles of time, space, motion, natural laws etc. are in place. It cannot prove why they are there in the first place.

3. The reason why it cannot prove this, is because no scientific experiment will be able to remove these universal prinicples as factors, then subsequently allow them to originate in some manner.

4. Therefore, the best we have is theory, and philosophy, pertaining to wisdon and reason, is a suitable discipline when it comes to theorising.

5. The second and third parts of my argument related to the stage before universal principles were in place, or the why the principles are there in the first place, therefore justifying the extensive use of philosophical methodlogy.

6. The stage before the principles are in place is relevant to BB, because BB makes the claim that energy always existed. Therefore, I am within my right to address this claim with philosophy.

7. The claim is flawed. Energy requires time to exist, yet time is not infinite, so energy could not always have existed. Energy can not be self-necessary, for it requires the universal principles to be in place before it can exist, yet those principles are also not self-necessary.

8. The only thing that is capable of being self-necessary is something which can exist entirely independant of any other entities, or does not require to be caused by a prior atcuallity to exist. No entities in atheistic accounts are capable of this. Only that which is self-necessary could possibly 'have always existed', and could have initiated the first non self-necessary actuallity .

Conclusion- Philosophy is relevant to BB. There are other conclusions I can make from these points too, but I won't state them becuase they are necessary and will just open up an uneeded can of worms.

Dre. said:

Fair enough, but I'm suggesting that there are flaws that you are either unaware of, or disagree are flaws.

The thing is now, if I ask how I went, you're always going to say it was a good try but there were plenty of flaws in it because you are of a different persuasion, but you are always going to disagree with anti-evolution theory.

So my question is what anti-evolution arguments was I suppsed to employ to win you over? (As have you think it was a good argument, not necessarily alter your belief).

Click to expand...

Who's to say your trying to win me over? Succumbio went against Evolution, but his argument was so well done that I am making him the measuring stick. Read his argument how how well it's crafted. At its very core, he addresses the key points in an intro post, offers plenty questions to answer, and answers potential questions.

In the DH, you likely WILL NOT convince anyone, but that's not your point, it's to offer intellectually-healthy discussion.

Yeah I meant offer healthy discussion, not try and change your beliefs.

I thought Sucumbio was arguing against Nuckols and for the evidence of evolution?

So what did I do that needs to be fixed?

Well, he gives a fair shake to both sides.

You need to offer less philosophical examples and more examples backed up by philosophical reasonings.

CK could you please elaborate on what you mean when you said I need to give less philosophical examples, and more examples based on philosophical reasoning?

Sucumbio said:

Wrong, and wrong. Humans adopted spirituality as a direct result of intellect, which is categorically due to the enlarging of the humanoid brain, which is directly related to the consumption of Meat, which correlates to the invention of Fire, and the Skills of Hunting which all encompassing lead to the creation of the Hunter-Gatherer society. Process of ... evolution.

And Dolphins kill for sport.

Click to expand...

I still don't think this refutes my theory for various reasons but we'll leave it at that.

Sucumbio said:

This is not against Big Bang, this supports it. Time IS finite, from the RELATIVE standpoint of the Big Bang. It starts, and we arrive to today. Before the Big Bang, there is NO TIME, because time HAS to be relative in order to be measured. For more on this start with On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies by Albert Einstein in which he develops the models for the Theory of Special Relativity, which will lead you to discover writings on Space-time and so forth.

Click to expand...

I started reading it but I'm too out of it at the moment to understand it, what does he say about why the universal principles of time, space, laws of nature, laws of motion, laws of energy etc. exist, or how they came into existence? Because this is really the point I'm attacking of BB.

Sucumbio said:

And NO ONE has ever... ever... ever successfully tackled the Why. The Why is ... what some of us here on Earth claim to be the reason for our very existence... to travel high and far, learn all we can, to discover the answer to the very question. Some believe it can only be answered after you die. All a scientist can do is explain the patterns, the chain of events... but why? Why are we here? Why is all that nifty stuff Albert E noticed here for us to notice? Well, my friend, your guess is as good as mine, and no one will ever be "right" methinks when it comes to that. That wasn't his point. His point was to better understand the question. What does it mean, to ask Why? How do we properly ask, Why? The answer, eluded even him, Hawkings, it eludes us all, it may even fit into the category of unsolvable because we're mere mortals. I won't even dare go there, lol. Neither of us are ready for THAT debate.

Click to expand...

No I'm not asking about the purpose of our existence.

Science deals with what happens in the universe after the universal principles of time, space, laws of nature, laws of motion, laws of energy and matter etc. are already in existence. The theory of evolution after these principles are in place is not what I'm attempting to refute.

However, science cannot explain how these unviersal principles of time, space, motion, energy, laws of energy etc. came into existence, the reason this is so is because no experiment will be able to remove these factors, to subsequently allow them to originate in some manner.

In my opinion, BB does not provide an adequate answer to this question, yet I feel it has to because it is an origin-of-the-world theory. That Einstein work seemed to be dealing with issues after the principles of time space, motion etc. already existed, therefore it is irrelevant to my argument.

The problem I have, is that neither time nor energy are self-necessary entities, therefore could not have been the original actuallity of the universe. Considering that time came into existence at some point, there needed to be a prior actuallity, a prior motion, to intiiate its existence, yet in atheistic accounts, no motion could have intiiated this, because time already needs to be in place for motion to exist.

Energy could also have not been the original self-necessary entity, for energy requires the universal principles to be in place before it can exist. However, considering that none of those unviersal principles are themselves self-necessary, I feel that BB is flawed on these grounds.

You must remember the point I'm addressing is philosophical, not scientific. Science comes into play once the universal principles are there, but how or why the universal principles came into existence is a philosophical issue, because as I mentioned earlier no scientific experiment can clarify this, so the best we have is logic.

And as for people saying I don't have evidence, I don't know what more I could do to prove my point. The idea that the world began with a ball of matter or enegry is mere theory, yet it is fact that time is not infinite, energy and the universal principles are not self-necessary, the original actuallity must be self-necessary, and that randomness is not a catalyst, but a way in which a catalyst works.

Just because I didn't do experiments for my evidence doesn't mean it's not valid, especially considering the issue I'm addressing is not scientific, because no experiments can get any results from it.

Sucumbio I appreciate the consructive criticism, and while you wre probably right on a few of your correction, I still feel you misunderstood my core argument.

I've heard about Looping Theory and I think it's flawed, I just can't go into detail at the moment, but I'll save this post for that when I'm able to.

Sucumbio said:

I do understand your argument. Your overlying premise is that if All Things (the Laws of motion, space-time, energy, matter, evolution, etc.) started with the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang to begin with? What proof is there, scientifically, that the Big Bang started itself given that it's impossible for that to even happen? Can there even ever be empirical data collected which tells us the answer to these questions?

Click to expand...

It was more that BB requires the universal principles to be in place but doesn't account for how they got there but yeah you're more or less correct.

Sucumbio said:

Matter and Energy co-exist in a single point in Space. This point has no dimensions. It is not in motion. It exists in no place in Time. It has no origin. Nothing and no one created it, as it was always there.

Click to expand...

I must have a different understanding what of matter is to you. I thought matter was physical substance, and all these things physical are governed by the UP, and in any case matter particularly requires space, which in is interrelated to time.

Sucumbio said:

It explodes outwards into Space, in all directions. Not 10 years after it formed, cause it was never officially formed. It was always there to begin with. Not 100 years after, there IS no after. It was a dot in space, then not.

Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense to me. The problem with suggesting that it was always in existence is that you have to suppose infinite time, which we know is wrong. However, suggesting that it exploded or transformed still implies motion. Also the fact it was first a dot in space, then not, implies that time already existed, for time is required for that transformation.

In other words, the problem is you're trying to suggest that energy existed before finite time did, which is impossible. If time is not the original actuallity, then for time to exist, it must have been caused by a prior motion, which of course cannot happen without time.

Sucumbio said:

Given this model, we see there isn't actually a true beginning of anything, before the explosion. The explosion itself, is technically not even really that. It's our perception of a transformation, but one could argue that as the universe expands itself, it will eventually deteriorate (matter -> energy) until all that is left is energy. Thus the Universe is returned to its original state. 1 point, made up of Energy/Matter the one of which cannot truly be discerned from the other. And the cycle repeats.

This is the looping theory, in which the Big Bang is our perceivable "starting point" and "ending point" at the same time. And All Things are really just observations made during the Universe's journey from beginning to end back to beginning.

This means the whole universe always was, always will be, trapped in endless cycle.

Click to expand...

This is still flawed. The whole 'loop' concept is really just an attempt to mask the fact that it is an infinite time theory. Whether it is a 'loop' is irrelevant, the point is it is still a chronological sequence of events, there is still an event-by-event progression which has change, meaning it cannot 'always have been' and be 'endless'.

In terms of it orignitating, all you're saying is that there was some form of infintie potentiallity which exists in eternity, which then proceeded to initiate the BB, then that proceeds to cyle endlessly. The problem is as soon as you claim that the infinite potentiallity created something, you have automatically related it to time, and seeing as infinite time in the universe does not allow for change, that potential cannot be eternal.

You're still trying to apply entities which are not self-necessary to origin of the universe. The problem is, as you said when you were mentioning your belief in God, you're trying to keep those entities within the universe, or the same 'realm' as the universe.

For an entity to be truly self-necessary, it would have to be outside the 'realm' of our universe, because any natural entity will always be non self-necessary.

What we know is that the universe is expanding and there is background radiation in the universe. These alone seem to support some kind of state in which all the matter/energy in the universe was close together at one point and then expanded rapidly. There's some of the science behind it.

Anyways, a proposed idea by Stephen Hawking for how time "began" or "started" is that, in fact, time may be like the south pole of the earth, the south pole being the southernmost, impassable point, but it is still a point. Likewise, time may have began at one point and continued thereon. Maybe time exists in a different sense, as well, in "imaginary time". "Real" time, which we acknowledge, would begin in a point in "imaginary" time. Stephen Hawking says imaginary time may be infinite. * But anyways, take this with a grain of salt.

A little comment from myself here: time may have started at a non-zero quantity (small, but never-reaching zero, no matter how small you make it), and space itself may have started in a similar way (singularity). What we measure though, in time and space, always requires some kind of reference point to compare it to. It's pretty meaningless to ask "what is before the first time unit" or "what is smaller than an infinite singularity?". You can't ask what came before time, because that question is framed in a way that asks "In terms of time, before the time came to be, what was time like?" which obviously isn't logical reasoning (Section three of the OP points this out), and it isn't part of the Big Bang theory anyways.



Sources (includes common misconceptions in it) http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
No Boundary: http://www.everythingforever.com/hawking.htm

Mewter said:

What we know is that the universe is expanding and there is background radiation in the universe. These alone seem to support some kind of state in which all the matter/energy in the universe was close together at one point and then expanded rapidly. There's some of the science behind it.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that violate a certain scientific law, I think it's called the Second Law of Thermodynamics? The one that says the matter of the world is decreasing, and that you can't get more from less.

Mewter said:

Anyways, a proposed idea by Stephen Hawking for how time "began" or "started" is that, in fact, time may be like the south pole of the earth, the south pole being the southernmost, impassable point, but it is still a point. Likewise, time may have began at one point and continued thereon. Maybe time exists in a different sense, as well, in "imaginary time". "Real" time, which we acknowledge, would begin in a point in "imaginary" time. Stephen Hawking says imaginary time may be infinite. * But anyways, take this with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

The imaginary time idea, considering it has no reference point, sounds like just another way of saying infinite time, which we know is wrong in a natural scientific sense.

Mewter said:

It's pretty meaningless to ask "what is before the first time unit" or "what is smaller than an infinite singularity?". You can't ask what came before time, because that question is framed in a way that asks "In terms of time, before the time came to be, what was time like?" which obviously isn't logical reasoning (Section three of the OP points this out), and it isn't part of the Big Bang theory anyways.

Click to expand...

This is exactly my point, and what I feel the problem is with atheistic theories. It is relevant to BB, because BB suggests that energy always existed, yet energy needs time to exist, yet we know time didn't always exist so to speak. The problem is, in atheistic theories, you can't have any actuallities before the conception of time, yet time requires a prior actualltiy to be conceived.

With God it's different however, because when a higher being is in the equation, you have a self-necessary entity independent of the universe and all the universal principles. Therefore, God does not relate to the world through a chronological sequence of events, like we do. How infact God does relate to the universe is beyond me, but considering He has infinite potentiality, there'd be a way, just beyond our knowledge. There have been a few theories about it though, such as the 'Eternal Now' theory, which suggests that God sees all the events of the world at once.

This be heading off-track, but this is why I believe a higher being must exist. Interestingly, most atheists don't believe in God because they feel there's no proofs of it, therefore the belief is not well-founded. I'm the opposite, however, I believe in God because I believe it'd be the impossible for the world to have been conceived without God, and that there is no sufficient proof for atheism.

Firstly, the Einstein argument was irrelevant to my argument because it presuppsoed the UPs were already in existence.

Also, any 'scientific' theory which you put infront of me can only be a theory, not fact, because no experiments or observation can be done to clarify answers to the issue I'm addressing.

The problem with the LT is that the universe still follows and event-by-event sequence, meaning that there must have been a starting point. You yourself don't deny this, but then say the cycle continues infinitely.

Also, yes I understand that nothing could have happened before time and BB existed, various God theories such as the Eternal Now theory account for this problem. The thing is though, in an atheistic sense, you cannot say time was the beginning, or that nothing occurred before time, because time, and all the other UPs that were at the start of the universe are not self-necessary. They are not capable of causing their own existence.

This also applies for the fact that LT allows for the universe to be self-creating. The universe, in an atheistic account, consists entirely of natural entities (which include the UPs etc.). The problem is, part the very essence of natural entities are that they are finite, they are not self-necessary, and require prior actuallities to initiate their existence.

Saying that the universe creates itself is like saying that eggs create other eggs, or create thesmelves. This is clrealy illogical because an egg is the creation, and possesses no properties which allow it the potential to create others.

The way I see it, no entity which atheist suggest is the original actuallity will be sufficient, because only a higher being would be capable of being self-necessary.

Here's another way of looking at it-

Suppose we have, energy, motion, and time/space.

I don't believe natural energy could exist independent of any other entitiy, but for the sake of this thought experiment, let's suppose it can. However, for this energy to actually do anything, it needs motion. We know motion needs time, yet time needs energy to have been caused.

You'll see that if you attempt to put one of these three as the original, self-necessary entity, it fails, because each entity requires another to function or exist. There is no 'hierarchy' among them, they are coehernt principles of equal value and significance. The problem for me is, and atheist cannot rightfully assume that these were all created at once, for that infact requires, energy, time and motion lol.

Dre. said:

The God issue, or the origin of existence, is known to be a philosophical issue. Just because your theory employs science doesn't mean philosophy has no authority to challenge it.

Click to expand...

Yes you're right, however your reasoning is contradicted by evidence.

Yes you have an answer to how something could come from nothing, but I'm saying the theory that energy always existed is implausible, because it has been shown that the infintie regress of time is illogical.

Click to expand...

It's not a theory it's a law in physics, are you disputing the Conservation of Energy? because if you are I think we're done here.

Also I don't have to prove something came from nothing, because the big bang doesn't rely on that argument as the Big bang originated from the Singularity.

Secondly, when did science ever explain how time, space, laws of nature, laws of motion etc. originated? it only explains what happened after they were in place.

Click to expand...

When did I mention this?

Third, regardless what science says, the above theory is flawed because energy cannot be a self-necessary entity. Energy can only exist if time, space, motion, laws of nature etc. already do, meaning it is not self-necessary. Also energy can't always have existed, because energy needs to time to exist, yet we know time didn't always exist, because it is not infinite. By starting your argument with energy always existing, your neglecting to explain how time etc. came into existence, which is what I'm saying the flaw is.

Click to expand...

The Big bang is the beginning of time. Saying Nothing came from something is just as indefensible as saying it came from vacuum fluctuation or something or another. Cosmologists are just now looking into this realm of pre-big bang theory, to say with certainty about things prior to that big bang is dishonest.

You should be trying to prove to me that time etc. are self-necessary (even though they are not). I'm not saying that once time, space etc. are in place, evolution couldn't have happened. I don't even necessarily discard the possibility of evolution occuring after being initiated by a higher being. I'm saying BB is wrong because it doesn't explaim time etc. and believes energy is self-necessary, which is philosophically flawed.

Click to expand...

I touched upon this in the previous paragraph.

The points I'm attacking don't require science, because I'm not saying evolution isn't impossible once time etc. exist. That's what Nuckols did, and that's what you need science for.

Click to expand...

How can something evolve when there is nothing, this doens't make much sense. What are you trying to say?

Science explains how everything functions with those principels of time etc. are in palce. You need philosophy to explain why those principles are there in the first place. I'm only discussing the latter, and I believe BB is wrong because it doesn't explain the latter, or provides a theory which is flawed.

Click to expand...

Ultimately you're using metaphysics to discredit Science. The problem with metaphysical statements is they're not testable. Metaphysical statements may seem reasonable but they're not testable, and you need more than a reasonable idea for it to be true.

And what do you mean I had no evidence? I had evidence that humans are devloping practices that serve no evolutionary benefit, I had proof that time is not infinite, and that energy cannot be self-necessary, and that randomness requires potentiality etc.

Click to expand...

Than please provide it for us.

Just because my proof isn't scientific doesn't mean it doesn't hold authorty. The belief that only science holds authority is scientism, which is not a universally accepted fact.

Click to expand...

No no no. When you're refuting scientific theories, or hell in your case well accepted scientific laws you can't disregard the science because it's inconvenient. You're using philosophy to show an argument by disregarding the evidence that exists and is well documented.

I decided to sum up in point form why Philosophy is central to this issue:

1. You addressed the apparent flaws in the second and third stages of my argument.

2. Science can only prove what happens after the universal principles of time, space, motion, natural laws etc. are in place. It cannot prove why they are there in the first place.

3. The reason why it cannot prove this, is because no scientific experiment will be able to remove these universal prinicples as factors, then subsequently allow them to originate in some manner.

4. Therefore, the best we have is theory, and philosophy, pertaining to wisdon and reason, is a suitable discipline when it comes to theorising.

5. The second and third parts of my argument related to the stage before universal principles were in place, or the why the principles are there in the first place, therefore justifying the extensive use of philosophical methodlogy.

6. The stage before the principles are in place is relevant to BB, because BB makes the claim that energy always existed. Therefore, I am within my right to address this claim with philosophy.

7. The claim is flawed. Energy requires time to exist, yet time is not infinite, so energy could not always have existed. Energy can not be self-necessary, for it requires the universal principles to be in place before it can exist, yet those principles are also not self-necessary.

8. The only thing that is capable of being self-necessary is something which can exist entirely independant of any other entities, or does not require to be caused by a prior atcuallity to exist. No entities in atheistic accounts are capable of this. Only that which is self-necessary could possibly 'have always existed', and could have initiated the first non self-necessary actuallity .

Conclusion- Philosophy is relevant to BB. There are other conclusions I can make from these points too, but I won't state them becuase they are necessary and will just open up an uneeded can of worms.

Click to expand...

Sucumbio is kind of attacking these, and I'd rather not steal his thunder so I'll leave this for him to finish.

I think you misunderstood alot of what I was trying to say.

Aesir said:

It's not a theory it's a law in physics, are you disputing the Conservation of Energy? because if you are I think we're done here.

Click to expand...

Energy always existing could only be law if you're saying eenergy always existed since the universal principles were in place. It's not fact that energy existed before UP were in place, you yourself admitted that was untestable. I'm saying energy couldn't exist before the UP were in place, because natural energy is not self necessary

Aesir said:

The Big bang is the beginning of time. Saying Nothing came from something is just as indefensible as saying it came from vacuum fluctuation or something or another. Cosmologists are just now looking into this realm of pre-big bang theory, to say with certainty about things prior to that big bang is dishonest.

Click to expand...

I never said something came from nothing, I'm saying that's impossible. For the BB to happen, time would already need to be in place, yet because time is finite and not self-necessary, it cannot cause itself to exist. You still haven't accounted for how time came into existence. As I said before, BB requires energy, which requires motion, which requires time, which in turn required something else to cause its existence.

In other words, you're trying to say that time began when the BB happened. The problem is, because the BB consisted of natural entities, all of which are finite and not self-necessary, a prior event must have initiated the BB, but time is required for this event to happen. You're trying to apply non self-necessary entities as the original actuallity.

Aesir said:

How can something evolve when there is nothing, this doens't make much sense. What are you trying to say?

Click to expand...

You've misunderstood me completely here. I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that the idea of things evolving once all the UP are in place is not what I'm refuting. My problem is the BB doesn't acount for why the UP are there, or how they got there.

Aesir said:

Ultimately you're using metaphysics to discredit Science. The problem with metaphysical statements is they're not testable. Metaphysical statements may seem reasonable but they're not testable, and you need more than a reasonable idea for it to be true.

Click to expand...

And how exactly has it been tested that energy existed before the principles of time, space. motion and other UPs were in place? It hasn't, therefore it's not scientific law. It can only be shown that energy exitsed after the UPs were in place, but that's not relevant to my argument, I'm not challenging that. I have challenged no sceintific laws at all, because what I'm addressing is how the UPs came into existence, which no scientific experiment can clarify, you yourself admitted this was untestable.

The thing is, you can't hide behind saying it's scientific law that energy always existed, because it's untestable that it existed before the UP, and you can't just say that nothing occurred before the BB. You guys say that because your expertise doesn't extend to those fields, so you just ignore it as if it's insignificant, when they are the aspects that can potentially flaw the theory.

So far, Sucumbio has been the only person to provide a legitimate attempt to answer my 'challenge' with the Looping Theory, although I personally feel that's flawed too.

Dre. said:

I think you misunderstood alot of what I was trying to say.

Click to expand...

Nope, I think you just warped a lot of what I said though.

Energy always existing could only be law if you're saying eenergy always existed since the universal principles were in place. It's not fact that energy existed before UP were in place, you yourself admitted that was untestable. I'm saying energy couldn't exist before the UP were in place, because natural energy is not self necessary

Click to expand...

I didn't say that, I said metaphysics was untestable. You're treading in the realm of Metaphysics to dispute science which is a grave mistake because it's untestable.

I never said something came from nothing, I'm saying that's impossible. For the BB to happen, time would already need to be in place, yet because time is finite and not self-necessary, it cannot cause itself to exist. You still haven't accounted for how time came into existence. As I said before, BB requires energy, which requires motion, which requires time, which in turn required something else to cause its existence.

Click to expand...

And I said the beginning was the singularity, how that came to be is still open for debate and cosmologists are still attempting to answer this. I'm simply saying I don't know how that singularity was formed. What we do know is what happened after the fact. Which is the Big Bang Theory. Everything before that is speculation.

In other words, you're trying to say that time began when the BB happened. The problem is, because the BB consisted of natural entities, all of which are finite and not self-necessary, a prior event must have initiated the BB, but time is required for this event to happen. You're trying to apply non self-necessary entities as the original actuallity.

Click to expand...

Actually no, I'm saying we don't know what was before that. It could have been anything, it could be string theory, it could be god it could be almost anything. The fact of the matter is no one knows what happened prior to the singularity, because everything before that is new territory

You've misunderstood me completely here. I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying that the idea of things evolving once all the UP are in place is not what I'm refuting. My problem is the BB doesn't acount for why the UP are there, or how they got there.

Click to expand...

But the big bang theory isn't even discussing those points you're making, I think you're points are more of an attack on Atheism than they are on the scientific theory. The Big bang explains how things got to where they are today, which is backed up by evidence gathered over the years. Prior to that singularity is still a developing field in cosmology.

And how exactly has it been tested that energy existed before the principles of time, space. motion and other UPs were in place? It hasn't, therefore it's not scientific law. It can only be shown that energy exitsed after the UPs were in place, but that's not relevant to my argument, I'm not challenging that. I have challenged no sceintific laws at all, because what I'm addressing is how the UPs came into existence, which no scientific experiment can clarify, you yourself admitted this was untestable.

Click to expand...

Can you please stop warping my words? that would be great. The only thing I said that was untestable is metaphysics. As it stands today what happened before the big bang is a metaphysical argument, we'll probably never know what happened before the big bang as it's mostly untestable. (though I could be wrong about that.)

The thing is, you can't hide behind saying it's scientific law that energy always existed, because it's untestable that it existed before the UP, and you can't just say that nothing occurred before the BB. You guys say that because your expertise doesn't extend to those fields, so you just ignore it as if it's insignificant, when they are the aspects that can potentially flaw the theory.

Click to expand...

Always existed implies time, I'm saying it's existed since the beginning of time. I'm not going to say it existed before time because that's indefensible. The law of Conservation of Energy falls within the realm of time, what happened before that could very well just be untestable.

The universe could be a never ending cycle of expansions and crunches. Expanding only as far as it can, and then crunching into it's self only to expand once more starting the process all over again. What initiated the creation of "Universal Principles" is unanswerable right now.

So far, Sucumbio has been the only person to provide a legitimate attempt to answer my 'challenge' with the Looping Theory, although I personally feel that's flawed too.

Click to expand...

Sure it is.

If you remember correctly, I said I was attempting to refute the atheistic version of BB.

In terms of what happened before the BB, many people would say God is not required, yet I'm arguing that BB without God is impossible.

If what you mean when you said energy always existed was that it existed since time existed, then that's fine, I was never challenging that claim, I was challenging the idea that it existed before time.

With regards to not knowing what was before BB, you seem to think that the theory is still perfectly plausible, but it's not. The fact you can't explain how the BB came into existence, when it clearly required something to cause it to exist means that theory is flawed, in an atheistic sense anyway. BB is theory, not fact, how can you prove that the world began this way? That can only be concluded if you first accept the premise that there is no higher being, which has yet to be disproved, then BB becomes the most likely candidate. The thing is, the BB relates to the UP, as does any origin of the world theory, the fact that atheistic BB doesn't explain the UP means that atheistic BB is flawed.

Remember, I'm only challenging atheistic BB.

sucumbio did a pretty good job at countering those points I must say.

With regards to not knowing what was before BB, you seem to think that the theory is still perfectly plausible, but it's not. The fact you can't explain how the BB came into existence, when it clearly required something to cause it to exist means that theory is flawed, in an atheistic sense anyway. BB is theory, not fact, how can you prove that the world began this way? That can only be concluded if you first accept the premise that there is no higher being, which has yet to be disproved, then BB becomes the most likely candidate. The thing is, the BB relates to the UP, as does any origin of the world theory, the fact that atheistic BB doesn't explain the UP means that atheistic BB is flawed.

Click to expand...

Your argument relies on the assumption that Energy needs time to exist, is there actual evidence for this to be true? I've yet to see it. You could very well be right, but at the same time you could be very wrong because energy could require absolutely nothing and it could have existed long before anything else.

And you've actually shown in this paragraph how little you know about science. You said the Big bang theory, is theory not fact. A scientific theory is different a scientific theory is an explanation of the facts. We know the Big bang happened, the theory is the explanation of the fact.

With all that said, it's foolish to discount the big bang theory because the question of what came before it. All the available evidence is explained by the theory quite well. It's also very likely the theory will change as we learn more about the origins and how it all began. It's all speculator physics when we move passed the known science.

Sucumbio said:

2. Science can only prove what happens after the universal principles of time, space, motion, natural laws etc. are in place. It cannot prove why they are there in the first place.

3. The reason why it cannot prove this, is because no scientific experiment will be able to remove these universal prinicples as factors, then subsequently allow them to originate in some manner.

Case in point. You assume that because -currently- no scientific method exists which can account for empirical evidence of a before-Bang existence, that we have no choice but to accept that we can Never know the this potential truth. Yes, some theories ... remove this necessity (such as the Loop theory), basically saying that there is no before, so we need not empirically prove there is no before. However, dimensional theory, which Einstein and Hawking go into, and another reason why they ARE relevant to your argument despite your refusal to accept that, tells us that it may one day be possible to actually witness the Big Bang, and furthermore, witness the Universe before it happened. This in turn may lead to the discovery of why it happened.

Click to expand...

I just feel it'd be impossible to remove the UPs, which are pretty much the laws the entire universe is governed by, to be able to generate them in an experiment. However, even if that is possible, I think if anything that would actually show that the UPs, and the universe in general, could not have caused themselves to exist, because they are not self-necessary.

Sucumbio said:

a.) Energy does NOT necessarily require Time to exist. Not until we are able to Stop Time, and then look to see if suddenly Energy disappears, will this be a True statement.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but for energy to do anything, it requires motion, yet motion requires time, yet time requires energy to have been caused. This is what I'm suggesting about coherence system, and why I think there can be no hierarchy with an original self-necessary natural entity.

Sucumbio said:

b.) Time, as we know it, requires a post-Bang Universe to exist. The energy of the pre-Bang universe, though possibly existing during a period of non-Time, does in fact exist, because there is a post-Bang occurrence which we can scientifically track the remnants of.

Click to expand...

Why does time require a universe after BB to exist, if time is finite, it would have an end point as well wouldn't it?

Sucumbio said:

You're saying the Universe couldn't have created itself. Well I say it could have. This 8th point of yours is an opinion, as the deductive reasoning and poor use of logic availed you this point, it cannot stand alone as a point of fact, only opinion and therefore cannot be argued legitimately by either of us.

Click to expand...

See I disagree with this logic. You're saying because we can't know what happened before the BB with absolute certainty, it's not to be discussed. This is convenient for BBers, because the pre-BB issue is the place where it is potentially flawed. Also, I don't believe the universe could create itself, becuase all natural entities are dependant on other ones, they function as a coherent system, there is no heriarch yamong them, with the top one being a self-necessary entity which can exist independant of the others. I also feel the Loop theory disquises the fact it is an infintie time theory, the problem is, it still requires an event-by-event sequence, meaning there must have been a starting point.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I feel asl if you guys are telling me different things. Aesir was saying that BB occured after the UPs were in place, we just don't know what happened before the BB. To that I say that I'm arguing that the UPs themselves could not have caused themselves to exist, because they are dependant on each other, therefore none of them are self necessary.

Whereas Sucumbio I get the feeling you're trying to apply that the UPs, or some of them originated as a result of the BB, or something similar to that.

Anyway, I think that just because we can't know with absolute certainty what lead to the BB doesn't mean we can't discuss it. You guys assume that BB must be true, therefore it's not important to know what lead up to it, whereas I believe it's not logical that natural entities could cause their own existence and create the BB, so I therefore feel that atheistic BB is flawed.

Besides, the point of debating is not who's right, it's about how well-founded your argument is. Solid facts aren't necessarily required for well-foundedness or the exhibition of extensive logic. I'm guessing though you guys don't feel my argument is well-founded or think I'm exhibiting extensive logic lol.

Edit: Aesir how is it solid fact that BB happened? I'm pretty sure someone before (CK maybe?) said it was only theory. So you're that certain BB happened you're willing to bet someone else' life on it? So even if God revealed Himself to everyone, you'd still feel that BB must of happned, God just must have initiated it lol? The way I see it, BB is just the best theory at the moment. No one else said it was fact. Maybe it is my lack of scientific knowledge, but I just don't see how you could remove all the energy in the world, then make an experiment that begins with a bang then expands on it's own, but I'm guessing they must have experiments that have shown this.

Edit: Aesir how is it solid fact that BB happened? I'm pretty sure someone before (CK maybe?) said it was only theory. So you're that certain BB happened you're willing to bet someone else' life on it? So even if God revealed Himself to everyone, you'd still feel that BB must of happned, God just must have initiated it lol?

Click to expand...

People confused the connection between law and theory, a theory isn't something that can eventually become a law they're two different things. A theory is an explanation of facts. The theory of the Big Bang is an explanation of the facts.

The way I see it, BB is just the best theory at the moment. No one else said it was fact. Maybe it is my lack of scientific knowledge, but I just don't see how you could remove all the energy in the world, then make an experiment that begins with a bang then expands on it's own, but I'm guessing they must have experiments that have shown this.

Click to expand...

I think we'll go with that, especially since you don't seem to understand what a scientific theory is.

Instead of continually referring to my lack of scientific knowledge as a reason why my argument has no validity, why don't you point out to me why it's fact that BB happened. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to explain the experiments they did to remove all the energy in the world, then start it with a bang and watch it expand.

To be honest, I am curious to know how they concluded with absolute certainty that not only has energy always existed, but billions of years before we existed it began with a bang and the matter expanded.

I just find it hard to believe, considering that we know that natural entities cannot cause themselves.

So essentially, you're saying that it is completely impossible that God could have created the world, which began (in our perception) billions of years ago, without a Big Bang and the expansion of matter?

By the way, I never said the BB couldn't happen, I said it could only happen with a higher being initiating it. As you said, you don't know what happened before the BB, or how the UPs which are required for BB got there. So really, it's not 'fact' that BB happened without God, and all I ever argued was that BB couldn't happen without God, so I haven't contradicted any scientific facts.

Actually, that brings me to another question. How exactly does my lack of scientific knowledge make my argument wrong? All I ever argued was that BB could not have happened without God. Apparently, I'm wrong because I don't accept BB as fact, due to my lack of scientific knowledge. However, whether BB actually happened is not relevant to my argument, it's what caused it that's relevant, and as you admitted, there is no scientific proof of what caused it, only allegedly that it happened. So really, whether or not I accept BB as fact is not relevant.

Also, you can't discard my argument, by claiming that science will know what caused BB in the future, because there is no scientific proof that science will have proof in the future.

The thing is, in atheism you're limited to natural entities. Now we know that everything that has a beginning cannot cause itself to exist, and anything that cannot cause itself to exist is not self-necessary, We also know that all natural entities have a beginning. Even if we suppose energy can exist independent of time and space (which then violates the essence of natural entities, arguably making it a supernatural entity), energy still requires motion to do anything, yet motion requires time, but time requires a motion of energy to be caused.

To me it doesn't matter whether we can know with absolute certainty what happened before BB, or how UPs came into existence. I don't know specifically what it happened, but I believe I can assume what didn't happen, and I believe atheistic BB didn't happen because it violates the essence of natural entities, and in atheism nothing but natural entities exist in the universe.

Does time require something to cause it? Cause and effect take place in the scene of time, so how can time be an effect of something when cause and effect are time based affiliations between objects?

Example of how it is time-based:
(My fingers loosen their grip on a cup of glass, and then the glass breaks after falling for the length of a second.)

Cause and effect are time-based, so how does the cause take place outside of, or rather before, time?
That is, unless there is another plane of perpendicular time involved... but then, how did that come to be? From what I can see, the same problem arises.

So, what exactly do you mean when you say a higher being has to initiate it? Is this cause and effect?

That's a good question, but certain God theories work around that.

That's only a problem if you believe God functions in an event-by-event sequence, which I don't. How exactly God functions is a mystery, but one theory I've mentioned before is the Eternal Now theory, which argues that God sees everything at once, rather than in an event-by-event sequence.

This is why I think if there is an afterlife, it doesn't put us on the same level as God, in other words I still feel that we are governed by principles that God isn't, similar to how we are in the universe now. Many theists believe when we ascend to heaven (assuming an afterlife exists) we are no longer governed by principles and we are purely our essence, with no real limitations (although they don't claim to have the power or greatness or God). I disagree, because we ascend into the afterlife after we die, that is still an event-by-event sequence, and is still governed by time. I'm not suggesting this means the afterlife doesn't exist, I'm just saying it is still a limited realm where we have an altered 'perception' so to speak, like this one, but different of course.

The current way I view that God functions, or at least in relation (I don't assume this is definite, we can't fully comprehend God if he exists, this is just the most well-founded conclusion I have at the moment) to us is hard to explain in words.

It's better if I illustrate it for you. Supposing God exists, imagine that my soul, or my essence, or my me-ness etc. is a circle, and so is everyone else's. Now imagine the universe, with all it's events and UPs and everything else is a square.

The way the majority view it is that it's a very big square, and all our little cirlces are in there. The way I see it, is that our circles have a square in them (and possibly other shapes too), meaning that our souls are given physical limitations, function in accordance with the UPs and perception of the world etc. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

The reason why I suggest is this is for two reasons. The first is that it removes the time problem. Secondly, I feel that our universe is an illusion. I guess that's a bad word for it, so don't think I'm nuts, I guess 'immaterial' is a better word. I still believe this is our reality, but the reason why I believe it's immaterial is if you take the universe as an entity itself, or picture it as the square, the universe cannot exist in time and space, because time and space only exist in the universe. Therefore I believe the universe as an entity is actually immaterial, because materiallity only exists in the universe, if you get what I mean. I guess that theory only applies if you believe in God though.

I hope that all made sense, you guys probably think I'm a nutjob lol.

Sucumbio said:

What I said was that your poorly availed logic led you to your 8th point, which was an OPINION, and as thus, cannot properly be argued, by either of us. In point of fact I believe it is extremely important to discuss what may have existed before the Big Bang. And I will wait most patiently for science to be able to explore those possibilities.

Click to expand...

See this is the logic that I disagree with, that you assume only science is a valid authority, or that science will have answers to everything. I'm starting to get the feeling that science majors teach scientism as well as science. Science doesn't have answers for this, my point is is that it couldn't, because the origin of the universe must extend beyond natural entities, and science is only concerned with natural enitities.

Also, there are certain facts which science did not conclude. It is fact that there is some spiritual or supernatural element to the world. I personally know people, one of whom is an atheist, who have been to psychics (not cold-reading frauds) who have spoke in intricate detail of their dead relatives without the person saying a single word at all to the psychics, or filling out any questionnaire (they do that for John Edwards apparently).

Also, over 8 million Americans alone have been deemed been clinically dead, with the common account being they were in a dark tunnel and were experiencing a euphoric sensation.

Again, my godmother had a dream where her late father spoke to her in a language she didn't understand, she had never heard the words before, she later found out he said 'your soul will always live on'.

Even just recently, an old lady terminally ill with cancer, attained a relic somehow related to Mary Mckillop (can't remember what it was, but Mary Mckillop was an Australian woman soon to be ordained a saint incase you didn't know). Upon attaining this relic and praying frequently, instead of dying, she began regaining her health until she became completely healthy yet again. Several medical experts were brought in to examine this, and none of them could account for her sudden boost of health, it was medicallyunexplainable. I'm not suggesting the Catholic Church speaks the truth, just showing there is some form of spiritual element in the world.


There are plenty more of these phenomena, yet none of these were concluded by science, yet are facts. Therefore, if you believe in evolution, I'm guessing you must believe that humans, as mere animals, must have 'evolved' souls, the ability to speak to the dead, the abiltiy to exist in some form of afterlife, and to come to people in dreams etc., yet science concludes none of that.

Sucumbio said:

The point of debating is not always about who is right or wrong, it is however about who can defend their points and who cannot. You have been circling around over and over without offering any new angles. You've not well-rebutted the arguments brought against you. You have not displayed clear logical skills, either in your original thesis, or in your rebuttals. You have displayed a lack of knowledge in this subject, and yet have attacked this subject with vague notions and a serious lack of sources to defend your position. You have essentially done with Big Bang Theory the exact thing CK's original article was guilty of, with the exception of bringing Hitler into it.

Click to expand...

And why exactly would I need to offer new angles when no one, apart from your Looping theory, provided any answers to the challenge I offered?

I explained why I thought a higher being must've been responsible, because natural entities cannot cause themselves and are not self-necessary. This was explored in pretty much every post I made in response to everyone's counters.

Also, you guys were arguing different things. Aesir was saying BB occurred after the UPs, and you Scumbio were saying that BB caused UPs to exist, which is different. Even if BB is fact, whether it caused UPs to exist, or it was caused by the UPs (which then whose existence is not accounted for) is not fact. My essay aimed to show that BB could not have caused the UPs to exist, but rather the other way around, and then to show that only God could have caused the UPs to exist. I really don't see how it could have been clearer.

I responded to every counter put in front of me. Everyone just tried to condescend me, instead of actually explaining why my theory that natural entities cannot be self-necessary, and therefore cannot cause BB is wrong.

No one, apart from your LT, even attempted to argue why it would be more logical that the universe created itself than having God create it. So if no one does that, what do I have to refute? You gave me LT, and I responded to that, dissecting the theory and showing why I thought it was wrong.

You guys admitted science has no knowledge of what happened before BB, and what happened before BB was the only issue I addressed. Therefore, why would I require scientific knowledge, when there is no scientific knowledge in the area?

Sucumbio said:

Case in point, this tired rhetoric right here. Seriously? You're basically saying because we can't create our own universe there's no way (or point) to proving THE universe was created with the Big Bang? Ridiculous.

Click to expand...

Well for it to be indisputable fact that the universe created itself, I assumed there would have been some experiments or testing that showed that an original natural entity somehow transformed into matter and expanded.

All I'm saying is that it's impossible that the universe, comprised entirely of natural entities, could have caused itself to exist. Therefore, I'm saying that even if BB did happen, it must have been caused by a higher being. As I said before, your LT was the only time someone ever attemtpted to show that the universe creating itself was more logical than God doing it.

I tried to refute was the idea that BB could of happened without God. So, if you defend this theory that I'm attacking, instead of condescending me, why doesn't someone actually tell me why it's more probable that the universe created tiself rather than God?

The thing is, you throw all your scientific content at me, yet you know there is no scientific content on what caused the BB, so all that science is irrelevant. If you guys are atheists, and not agnostic, then you should be able to explain to me the question I mentioned above, but if you say you're an atheist yet have no logical reason to believe that God couldn't have created the world, and that the universe itself must have done it, then your atheism is not well-founed. Saying that science will eventually prove that the universe created itself is not a well-founded reason, because considering that we have no scientific knowledge of the question at hand, there is no scientific proof that in the future there will be scientific proof that the universe created itself.

So the stage is set for an atheist to show me it's improbable God could have initiated BB.

I see what you are saying, Dre. I'm just going to give you some debating practice and show you what to look out for when debating.

You present some big assumptions that must be presumed true in order to make your argument true.

Assumptions:
-You first have to assume God exists.
-In addition, it is assumed He must be self-necessary.
-Next, you assume that their is indeed a spiritual, all-encompassing dimension to the universe (the physical part is inside the spiritual part, but the spiritual part is still "bigger". This spiritual part isn't affected by normal physical laws.
-Next, you must assume that God can interact with the universe (in whatever mysterious and incomprehensible way).

Could this have happened? Maybe.
There is no way to test or disprove this. At all. So then you ask us to "show me it's improbable God could have initiated BB". Try to stay away from these kinds of things.
You also commit a fallacy of "false dichotomy", where you present only two of many more possible choices and insist that those choices are the only ones (show me that it's impossible God initiated the Big Bang or just admit defeat because I just shot down atheistic BB). No, you just shot down present-day capabilities (you cannot say science will not ever know these things for sure) of scientifically explaining pre-Big Bang causes.

The problem with your argument is that it is full of assumptions. These assumptions are assumptions that must be assumed just to make your argument valid. What goes wrong here is that this becomes a test of "what-if". Atheists are able to make possible hypotheses that use just as many assumptions as your hypotheses did without involving a deity.

Here is my "Intertwined Multiverse" scenario:
One universe spawned off of another universe, which was caused by the former universe. Universe A causes Universe B, and Universe B causes Universe A. Impossible, you say! Not really, because they may both begin from each other, but is it not logical that if A causes B, and B causes A, then A happening can cause A to happen yet again? And when I mean again, I don't mean a second, similar action preceding the first in time. No, I mean the first action triggering itself.

Take this similarly to the "my own grandfather" story, where one is able to travel back in time and become their own grandfather. Likewise, you can exit your universe, enter another, and choose return coordinates that take you to before you left in your former universe (then it starts all over again). This would be the route one traveler could take if they were sucked through from one universe into the other it was spawning.

After some time, something happens that spawns another universe that cuts off in non-zero units of time and becomes its own existence. Since time can only be held inside its own universe, you cannot say that one universe came after the other! Likewise, you cannot say that Universe A came before from Universe B, since that would be like super-imposing a multi-versal time scale on both universes. Could this have happened? Maybe.

Assumptions:
-Multiple universes exist.
Compare to: God's existence
-Universes can spawn other universes causing themselves.
Compare to: God is self-necessary.
-Universes have their own space-times unique to themselves (basically, no intra-universal time, and no interaction between them after they split).
Compare to: Spiritual realm of universe with physical realm.
-Cause and effect work in weird ways when universes make baby universes.
Compare to: God's mechanics

So, be careful when debating.

*Not to mention that time is a very loose word that can have various definitions (4th dimension? Motion is necessary for it? Both? Is necessary for motion?). It's safe to say that motion causes what we perceive as time, but time may also be a fourth degree/angle of freedom for matter that allows it to move 3-Dimensionally. Who knows for sure?

Mewter I really appreciate that you don't condescend me, and that you actually respond to my specific points isntead of just saying they're flawed and my lack of scientific knowledge on a topic where there is no scientific knwoledge automatically makes me wrong. However, I do think you misunderstood some of the methodology in my argument.

Mewter said:

You present some big assumptions that must be presumed true in order to make your argument true.

Assumptions:
-You first have to assume God exists.

Click to expand...

No I'm not assuming that God exists, therefore the universe must be caused by God. What I'm saying is that because natural entities cannot cause themselves, are not-self necessary and are dependent on other ones, there must have been a non-natural entity which was self-necessary that created the universe. My belief in God comes from the fact I feel it's impossible that the world could have existed without Him.

Mewter said:

-In addition, it is assumed He must be self-necessary.

Click to expand...

The thing is, God has to be self-necessary, otherwise it's not God, that's just part of the definition of what God is. Saying that God is not self-necessary is like saying that truth is false. My point is that the original cause must be self-necessary, which only God, or a higher being (they are the same thing) can be.

Mewter said:

-Next, you assume that their is indeed a spiritual, all-encompassing dimension to the universe (the physical part is inside the spiritual part, but the spiritual part is still "bigger". This spiritual part isn't affected by normal physical laws.

Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that we know there is some spiritual or supernatural element to the world, it is concrete fact. Therefore, any scientific theory must accomodate for these elements for it to be valid. Considering that evolution pertains to humans, yet humans have are related to these spirtual/supernatural elements, evolution must accommodate for these elements.

Mewter said:

-Next, you must assume that God can interact with the universe (in whatever mysterious and incomprehensible way).

Click to expand...

To what extent He interacts with the universe, or even cares about it I'm not sure about. However, if He exists, considering He is of infinite potential, being omnipotent and omniscient, He can do whatever He wants, including interacting with the universe. To remove that capability is to remove His infinite potentiality, and I believe only an infinite potentiality could be the original existence, for restricted potentiality implies design, or that it was caused by a prior actuallity.

Mewter said:

Could this have happened? Maybe.
There is no way to test or disprove this. At all. So then you ask us to "show me it's improbable God could have initiated BB". Try to stay away from these kinds of things.

Click to expand...

You cannot disprove God's existence, because no matter what science comes up with, there's always the possibility that God could have initiated it. However, it is possible to prove His existence, I'm not saying there is sufficient evidence at the moment, but if we experience phenomena that only God could create, or He just outright revelas Hismelf to us, then we have proof of His existence. We have experienced supernatural phenomena, so must accept the existence of something greater than natural entities.

Mewter said:

You also commit a fallacy of "false dichotomy", where you present only two of many more possible choices and insist that those choices are the only ones (show me that it's impossible God initiated the Big Bang or just admit defeat because I just shot down atheistic BB). No, you just shot down present-day capabilities (you cannot say science will not ever know these things for sure) of scientifically explaining pre-Big Bang causes.

Click to expand...

You need to accept that science is limited and always will be. We don't need science to know that God must have created the world, because we already know that natural entities are not self-necessary, and the original existence must be self-necessary. It doesn't matter what theories science come up with, they'll always be dealing strictly with natural entities, yet we know natural entities cannot cause themselves to exist, or exist independently of other natural entities.

Here's a very summed up version of Immanuel Levinas' God theory-

1. All that is of being has a reason to exist.
2. God, must then be of 'non-being' or 'otherwise than being', for he cannot have a prior reason to exist.

The thing is, all natural entities have a prior reason for existing, they all are means to a greater end, therefore cannot be 'otherwise than being', or the original cause for that matter.

Mewter said:

The problem with your argument is that it is full of assumptions. These assumptions are assumptions that must be assumed just to make your argument valid. What goes wrong here is that this becomes a test of "what-if". Atheists are able to make possible hypotheses that use just as many assumptions as your hypotheses did without involving a deity.

Click to expand...

These aren't just assumptions though, most of what I've said is fact, It's fact that a supernatural element exists to the world. It's the fact that cause of the world must be self-necessary, and that natural entities are not self-necessary. Therefore, I concluded that the cause of the world must not be a natural entity. My argument is based on well-founded premises.

The difference in methodology between me and a theist is that my belief in a God is a result of my premises, whereas their premises are the result of their conclusion that God exists.

Mewter said:

Here is my "Intertwined Multiverse" scenario:
One universe spawned off of another universe, which was caused by the former universe. Universe A causes Universe B, and Universe B causes Universe A. Impossible, you say! Not really, because they may both begin from each other, but is it not logical that if A causes B, and B causes A, then A happening can cause A to happen yet again? And when I mean again, I don't mean a second, similar action preceding the first in time. No, I mean the first action triggering itself.

Click to expand...

This is impossible though. Firstly, you're already supposing time exists, but even permitting that, there are still issues. Firstly, two things cannot cause each other, because in a cause-and-effect system, the cause preceeds the effect, however because in your example niether preceeds the other, there are no effects, just two separate causes that still require prior actuallities to cause them. You're essentialltiy trying to argue for the possibiltiy of two self-necessary entities, yet they are ultimately dependant on each other, removing their self-necessaity and thus requiring prior reasons for their existence.

Mewter said:

Take this similarly to the "my own grandfather" story, where one is able to travel back in time and become their own grandfather. Likewise, you can exit your universe, enter another, and choose return coordinates that take you to before you left in your former universe (then it starts all over again). This would be the route one traveler could take if they were sucked through from one universe into the other it was spawning.

Click to expand...

Firstly, time travel would be the manipulation of a dimension of the universe, not the necessarily the transition into another universe. Secondly, even if it was a transition into another the universe, that universe would have been created as a result of the time travel itself. This means it was an effect, not a cause, making it just a secondary universe. This has no bearing on the origin of the original universe.

Mewter said:

After some time, something happens that spawns another universe that cuts off in non-zero units of time and becomes its own existence. Since time can only be held inside its own universe, you cannot say that one universe came after the other! Likewise, you cannot say that Universe A came before from Universe B, since that would be like super-imposing a multi-versal time scale on both universes. Could this have happened? Maybe.

Click to expand...

The fact that the secondary universe was an effect of the first suggests it did come after the first. Saying it is on a different timeline does not change the fact it was created by the first.

The thing is, time-travel only alters our surroundings, what we won't ever be able to manipulate is the fact that the world functions in an event-by-event sequence. Even if we can go from present to past, the fact that we were once in the present, and now no longer there, suggests that an event occurred for that to happen, so we can never alter the event-by-event law of time.

Everything you have mentioned is still dependant on this event-by-event sequence, therefore not self-necessary. The only thing that could not be dependant on this sequence is God Himself.

If anything, this talk of possible time travel advocates my personal God theory which I mentioned in a previous post.