Forum for discussing local and world politics and issues. All views are welcomed. Let your opinions be heard on current news and politics.
All standard guidelines apply to this board, No Flaming, No Taunting, No Foul Language,No sexual innuendos,etc..
As politics can be a volatile subject, please consider how you would feel if your comment were directed toward yourself.
Any post deemed to be in violation of guidelines will be deleted or edited without warning or notification. Any continued misbehavior will result in a ban or hidden status, so please play nice!!!
*"Moderators are here for a reason. If a moderator (or Global Moderator or Fencer) requests that a discussion on a certain subject to cease - for whatever reason - please respect these wishes. Failure to do so may result in being hidden, or banned."
Liste over diskusjonsforum
Du kan ikke skrive meldinger i dette forumet. For å kunne skrive her må ha et Brain Pawn medlemskap eller høyere.
Emne: Re: But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing.
Iamon lyme: As far as I remember the initial discussion were nothing like the Kalam stuff you are quoting. Rather...
"From his considerations of the nature of motion in Physics, in Book 8, Aristotle concludes that there must be a logically first unmoved mover in order to explain all other motion. In Physics 8.1, he argues that motion is eternal. Motion cannot begin without the prior existence of something to impart motion in another thing, so that there will always be something in motion, since something at rest cannot cause motion in another thing. In addition, if motion were not eternal, then time would not have always existed, since time is the measure of motion; but, according to Aristotle, no one would be willing to say that time has not always been in existence. Nor can motion cease, since to do so something must cause it to cease, but then the thing that caused motion to cease would require something to cause its cessation and the process would continue ad infinitum. Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" (252b 6-8). Aristotle also objects to the idea that motion may have begun self-caused; he points out that, in those things in which motion is said to be "self-caused," in fact, there is a part of the thing that is already in motion and imparts motion to the whole. Self-caused means that motion is not imparted from without but from some part of the whole that is already in motion. In such cases, the motion of the part that moves the other parts of a things requires a mover.
Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) According to Aristotle, all movable things are only potentially in motion, and require something else to act upon them in order to be set in motion: "So it is clear that in all these cases the thing does not move itself, but it contains within itself the source of motion—not of moving something or of causing motion, but of suffering it." (Physics 8.4; 255b 29-31). Thus, if there were no unmoved mover, there could be no motion, because a moved mover requires a cause of its own motion and no infinite regress is possible. In Physics 8.6, Aristotle argues that, since motion is both eternal and necessary, the first mover must be equally eternal and necessary. Because those things involved in the eternal and continuous process of motion are not eternal and necessary, since they come into being and perish, there must be one or many eternal and necessary thing or things outside the process of motion that imparts or impart motion to the things in motion. This is the only way that there could be any motion, for non-eternal and contingent movers cannot explain all motion, because their own coming into existence needs a cause. He explains, "There is something that comprehends them all, and that as something apart from each one of them, and this it is that is the cause of the fact that some things are and others are not and of the continuous process of change" (Physics 259a 3-5). It is not possible to explain eternal motion by postulating a plurality of unmoved movers capable of imparting motion but that do not exist eternally, for "There must clearly be something that causes things that move themselves at one time to be and at another time not to be" (Physics 258b 21). Aristotle determines that there is only one unmoved mover, not only because many unmoved movers are unnecessary, but because only one mover could produce a continuous motion, in the sense of being an interconnected system of causes and effects. Moreover, since it is continuous, motion is one; one effect requires a single cause, so that the unmoved mover must also be one. He concludes that an unmoved mover causing eternal motion must likewise be eternal (Physics 260a 1-2)."
>>>>Warning in depth research into this carries a standard headache alert, and advises a pint of beer to relax the brain cells. <<<<
Emne: Re: But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing.
(V): [ Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" ]
But then he says...
[ Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) ]
How can an infinite regress be impossible if "there never was a time when there was not motion"?
He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events. I don't know how, because if "there never was a time when there was not motion" then there never was a starting point, which means there must be an infinite number of past events. His argument is self defeating, unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion".
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Iamon lyme: Not sure...That's kinda getting into high end ideas of singularities and pure energy.. not even the scientists are sure at this level, as it is the realm of quantum events.
"unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion"."
There... time. At the starting point.. what was time? Did it exist as we know it??
"As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present."
No. Wild Victorian rumours of Men in the Moon, Mutants on Venus, etc.. were just wild rumours. I'm talking now. In the last 20-30 years, and so much definite proof in the last 0-5 thanks to the likes of Kepler and new techniques in allowing for atmospheric disruption for ground based telescopes.
"The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones."
I know... it was that variation that created the first stars. The recent analysis shows that galaxies themselves seem to clump in ribbons and clusters through out the universe.
"And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures"
And carbon is produced alot by stars as they start dying.... .... 13 billion years.....
"And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will.."
No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones.
Dude... you need to take a look at some current youtube vids on physics and particularly stellar physics. The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
(V): "No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones."
Size isn't the only factor. What I said was most suns the size of ours burn out more quickly because of stellar content. We have a very metal rich sun compared to most others of the SAME size. I wasn't comparing our sun to larger or smaller ones. And BTW, I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy.
"The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!"
Well no kidding! And probably more out of date when I was a kid than for you, but I'm not talking about what we were taught as kids.
And I wasn't talking about wild rumors of life on the moon either. I was referring to speculation among scientists (yes, actual scientists) about life possibly existing on the moon based on observations of the lunar surface indicating the presence of water. If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Iamon lyme: Awww drat! I did it again! I'm getting ahead of myself... The metal content has nothing to do with lifespan, it has to do with a star system having enough of the heavy elements for creating an earth type planet. Our sun is expected to last a total of about 10 billion years, burning hydrogen steadily on its main sequence... so in this case it IS size that matters.
"Metal" content was about another point I wanted to make, how not just any old star or star system is able to have life just because a star is the right size or has the right luminosity. Drake and Sagan beamed a message to a large concentration of stars called globular cluster M13. The theory was because there are lots of stars in that region there was a higher probability of communicating with intelligent life.
Fat chance of that happening, since globular clusters are the worst places to go looking for life. They are among the most ancient things in the universe, which means their stars have a very low abundance of heavy elements... they're made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements are needed for building terrestrial planets. In globular clusters you are more likely to find only dust or grains or maybe boulders, but nothing like an Earth type planet that can serve as a platform for life to exist (much less develop). But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known.
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Artful Dodger: "ru napping?"
Well... yes and no. I've been sleeping a lot the past few weeks. But I also lost interest in the repeating topic cycles... like 'global warming'. I'm not against it, in fact I'm all for it and can't wait for it to get here. But this so called "crises" which has been brought to us by our concerned politicians (and the people who benefit from it) has proven to be nothing more than a lot of talk. My heating bills are just as high as they've always been. So anyway, phooey on all those promises of global warming... ya can't trust anyone these days, they'll lie to ya about anything!
The only time I felt like responding to anything was when you made a point about gun free zones being a joke. It's a bonehead idea that does nothing to solve the problem. It's like extending an invitation to anyone to just waltz right in and have their way long enough to do some real damage.
The best gun control argument I heard came from former Gov Huckabee... he said we have armed security at banks because we value our money. And we have armed security at hospitals because we value the patients. But we don't want armed security in our schools because... ?
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Iamon lyme: Well according to the gopher or muskrat or what ever that creature that sees its shadow is called, we're due for some local global warming very soon. And frankly, I can't wait. But I'll have to wait. So I guess I can wait. So why did I say I can't? I don't know. I need a shrink I think!
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Artful Dodger: It's some kind of hog... a ground hog or hedge hog... or road hog? (Harley Davidson?)
It was overcast Saturday where I live, so that's supposed to mean the little guy couldn't be scared by his own shadow. If he gets scared and dives back into his home then it means six more weeks of winter. I don't understand the science behind this, but that doesn't matter... I don't understand how a few parts per million extra carbon dioxide molecules can severley impact the planet either, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
Emne: Re: He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events.
Iamon lyme: So the end of winter and an early spring is determined by some cowardly little rodent who cries at the sight of his own shadow? I say we cook the little bugger and make some burgers!
Emne: Re: it has to do with a star system having enough of the heavy elements for creating an earth type planet. Our sun is expected to last a total of about 10 billion years
Iamon lyme: Not so nice towards the end period.
"I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy."
No... If it was bigger then it would be a factor. Jupiter is more relevant I feel in it's cleansing ability.
"If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?"
.... Mars is a nearly planet. From what I'm seeing now it is very probable it did have life. But with no magnetic field the sun killed it. They say an object like our moon did circle Mars but it appears to have crashed into the planet, when it was there.. Mars could have started to form organic life.
"But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known."
PR stunt.. like putting a record on the Voyagers.
"Because it will take 25,000 years for the message to reach its intended destination of stars (and an additional 25,000 years for any reply), the Arecibo message was more a demonstration of human technological achievement than a real attempt to enter into a conversation with extraterrestrials. In fact, the stars of M13, that the message was aimed at, will no longer be in that location when the message arrives.[1] According to the Cornell News press release of November 12, 1999, the real purpose of the message was not to make contact, but to demonstrate the capabilities of newly installed equipment."
Emne: Re: But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing.
(V): Aristotle believed both the universe and the unmoved mover are eternal. The kalam argument acknowledges an eternal unmoved mover, but not an eternal universe.
(hjem) Har lyst å spille flere spill, men klarer ikke å bestemme deg for hvilke spill du har lyst til å spille? Bli med i en turnering med tilfeldige spill. (pauloaguia) (Vis alle tips)