Great Coincidence

[bahman]

Science-Biology is sustained by human biological scientists.
The realization and knowledge of evolution is conditioned with science-Biology.
Therefore without human biological scientists, there is no realization of evolution.
Without a realization of evolution, there is no reality of evolution.

Yet for the millions of years that we were completely unaware of it, it managed to plod along and slowly do its thing.

Well said!

[Age]

Ok, to start I have to show that spacetime is fundamental, it cannot begin to exist.

you do not 'have to' do this at all. you, however, what to do this in order to back up and support a pre-existing belief and/or presumption you have and are holding onto.

To prove this think of spacetime coming into existence.

Okay, for to prove, and for 'us' to see, that so-called 'spacetime' is 'fundamental', and that it cannot begin to exist, 'we' have to think of 'spacetime' coming into existence.

Would 'you' like 'us' to think of 'spacetime' 'coming into existence' from the perspective of 'evolving into existence', or, from the perspective of just instantly being 'created into existence'?

And, if it is the latter perspective that you are after, would 'you' like 'us' think about 'spacetime' being 'created into being', instantaneously from 'nothing', or, from 'something' else?

This means that there was a point before that spacetime didn't exist.

Ah okay, it appears now that 'you' want 'us' to think of 'coming into existence', from the 'instantaneously created into existence' perspective, only, right? And, it now also appears that 'you' want 'us' to think of 'coming into existence', from the 'instantly created from nothing', perspective, as well, correct?

If you answer 'Yes' to both of these, then what does the word or phrase, 'spacetime', even mean or refer to, to you, exactly?

But that means that you need another spacetime to allow spacetime to come into existence.

Only if you had some pre-existing belief or presumption that the Universe, itself, began to exist.

Which by the way would be a Truly CLOSED, and thus Truly stupid view to be having and maintaining. But, then again, you may well believe, absolutely, otherwise.

Why? Because of before in the previous statement. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a spacetime that didn't come into existence. [/quote]

I am yet to even become aware of what you even mean by and with the words 'spacetime'.

Therefore, spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist.

So, for you to, supposedly, prove that 'spacetime', (whatever that is exactly). cannot begin to exist, was all that was really necessary was for 'us' to just, 'think of spacetime coming into existence'?

If yes, then 'this' seems somewhat very counter intuitive.

But, if you believe that 'this' works, then so be it.

Now, what is the great coincidence? God or the stuff that made the universe cannot exist before the beginning of spacetime

Why could 'the stuff' that made the Universe not be able to exist before the so-called 'beginning of spacetime'?

so they could only exist at the beginning of spacetime or after.

Why, exactly, could 'the stuff' that made the Universe only exist at the, alleged, 'beginning of spacetime', or after?

They come into existence if they didn't exist at the beginning of spacetime.

So, to "bahman" anyway, God, or, 'the stuff', which made the Universe, Itself, 'came into existence' if 'they' did not exist at the, presumed, 'beginning of spacetime'.

But why could God, or, 'the stuff', which made the Universe, itself, not 'come into existence' at the, claimed, 'beginning of spacetime'?

Obviously, any 'stuff', which existed at the, believed, 'beginning of spacetime', 'came into existence' as well, right?

That means they were created.

But absolutely every thing, except for the two or three fundamental things of the Universe, Itself, was, is, and will be created, anyway, right?

This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!

So, "bahman" is 'now' suggesting that God, or, 'the stuff', which made the Universe, Itself, could have existed, exactly, at the, now claimed, and so-called, 'beginning of time'. Whatever and whenever 'that is', exactly.

[Age]

or the beginning is the end and the cycle of expansion becomes the cycle of collapse...

Which would obviously not be 'the beginning of';

The Universe.
Spacetime. Nor,
Time.

But I do not think that "bahman" would really be open enough to see, and comprehend, what you said and showed here.

to say nothing of the black holes absorbing super-novas...

or potholes destroying pintos...

-Imp

[Age]

This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!

Perhaps your above argument is the old version.
The modern versions of the God arguments is that God is the uncaused cause, immaterial, timeless, eternal and is omnipotent to create the universe, spacetime, humans, nature, etc.
https://youtu.be/vybNvc6mxMo?t=358
The counter argument against God is to show that the uncaused-cause is an impossibility to be real.

But it is an impossibility to show what is actually existing to be so-called 'an impossibility to be real'.

[Age]

This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!

Perhaps your above argument is the old version.
The modern versions of the God arguments is that God is the uncaused cause, immaterial, timeless, eternal and is omnipotent to create the universe, spacetime, humans, nature, etc.

Spacetime as I argued is fundamental so it cannot be created.

Why, to you anyway, can something that is 'fundamental' not be created?

The words immaterial, timeless, and eternal are incoherent at best ambiguous.

But those words are completely coherent, and can be, well to me anyway, completely unambiguous.

Why are those words incoherent to you here, alone, "bahman"?

https://youtu.be/vybNvc6mxMo?t=358
The counter argument against God is to show that the uncaused-cause is an impossibility to be real.

Well, here I am not interested in showing that.

What, exactly, is 'it', "bahman", that you are interested in showing?

[Harbal]

Science-Biology is sustained by human biological scientists.
The realization and knowledge of evolution is conditioned with science-Biology.
Therefore without human biological scientists, there is no realization of evolution.
Without a realization of evolution, there is no reality of evolution.

Yet for the millions of years that we were completely unaware of it, it managed to plod along and slowly do its thing.

Well said!

Thank you.

[Age]

That is why I stated that your "Spacetime as I argued is fundamental so it cannot be created" is outdated.



Physics is sustained and conditioned by the scientific method which is human-based.
As such, spacetime is human-based and not otherwise, i.e. not of or from an absolute Mind or God.

There is no way to mention 'spacetime' other than as conditioned to Physics, i.e. the science-physics mode, paradigm, framework and system.

There is spacetime because science-physics said so, not because someone's father, mother, friends and anyone outside the science-physics community [biology, social sciences] said so.

Well, I can certainly argue that time cannot begin to exist. Spacetime however a part of a manifold so they come together.

You missed my point?

I stated spacetime [space and time individually] are 'man-made' within Physics [collective-of-subjects].
As such spacetime cannot be fundamental without any relation to humans [subjects].

How, exactly, did you human beings create or make 'space', itself, "veritas aequitas"?

But, obviously, you will not even acknowledge the irrefutable Fact that 'space', itself, is not so-called 'man-made', let alone even attempt to answer the clarifying question I posed, and asked you here. And this is because you are absolutely totally deaf, blind, and stupid to what I am just saying and asking here.

Which you will, once move, prove irrefutably True.

Which proves absolutely just how Truly CLOSED human beings can become because of strongly held onto and well maintained beliefs and presumptions.

[Age]

Spacetime as I argued is fundamental so it cannot be created. The words immaterial, timeless, and eternal are incoherent at best ambiguous.

That is why I stated that your "Spacetime as I argued is fundamental so it cannot be created" is outdated.

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.
Spacetime diagrams are useful in visualizing and understanding relativistic effects such as how different observers perceive where and when events occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

Physics is sustained and conditioned by the scientific method which is human-based.
As such, spacetime is human-based and not otherwise, i.e. not of or from an absolute Mind or God.

There is no way to mention 'spacetime' other than as conditioned to Physics, i.e. the science-physics mode, paradigm, framework and system.

There is spacetime because science-physics said so, not because someone's father, mother, friends and anyone outside the science-physics community [biology, social sciences] said so.

Well, I can certainly argue that time cannot begin to exist.

How many times do you need to be informed "bahman" that absolutely any thing can be, certainly, 'argued', but certainly being able to just 'argue' some thing in absolute no way at all makes what is being argued true, right, accurate, nor correct at all, before this irrefutable Fact is fully comprehended and understood by you?

From what I have observed here from you, you have not presented one argument that is a sound and valid argument, which are the only ones worth looking at and sharing.

Also, from what else I have observed from you, you have not argued for absolutely any thing in a way that would even be close to be agreed with and accepted by the majority, let alone by every one.

Spacetime however a part of a manifold so they come together.

A, supposed, 'manifold' to 'what', exactly?

And, when, exactly, did 'space', and, 'time', supposedly come-together?

[Age]

Well, I can certainly argue that time cannot begin to exist. Spacetime however a part of a manifold so they come together.

You missed my point?

I stated spacetime [space and time individually] are 'man-made' within Physics [collective-of-subjects].
As such spacetime cannot be fundamental without any relation to humans [subjects].

No. Humans just discovered the spacetime concept.

And, what is the 'spacetime' concept, exactly, to you and 'your' perspective, "bahman"?

It is fundamental whether human exists or not.

Is it the 'spacetime concept', which is supposedly fundamental whether you human beings exist or not, or, is it 'spacetime', itself, which is supposedly fundamental whether you human beings exist or not?

Either way, what is 'spacetime', itself, exactly, "bahman"?

[Age]

Ok, to start I have to show that spacetime is fundamental, it cannot begin to exist. To prove this think of spacetime coming into existence. This means that there was a point before that spacetime didn't exist. But that means that you need another spacetime to allow spacetime to come into existence. Why? Because of before in the previous statement. This leads to infinite regress unless you accept that there is a spacetime that didn't come into existence. Therefore, spacetime is fundamental and cannot begin to exist.

Now, what is the great coincidence? God or the stuff that made the universe cannot exist before the beginning of spacetime so they could only exist at the beginning of spacetime or after. They come into existence if they didn't exist at the beginning of spacetime. That means they were created. This leads to infinite regress unless we accept that they exist exactly at the beginning of time. And that is the great coincidence!

There is no co-incidence.
Space time exists, and from what you say cannot be created. So theres no need for a creator.
God is consistent with an invention of the human mind.

Even a so-called 'human mind' is another one of these inventions of you human beings, which does not even actually exist.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But evolution existed as a phenomenon whether there was a human or not. Could you deny that? I don't think that you fall into infinite regress if you take away the human factor.

You missed my point.

Within the common sense and conventional sense, yes, evolution began and existed as a phenomenon regardless of humans. I am not abandoning this, but there are more refined thinking beyond the common and conventional sense.

In the ultimate rigorous sense and a paradigmatic shift, evolution cannot exist without the human factor.

Science-Biology is sustained by human biological scientists.
The realization and knowledge of evolution is conditioned with science-Biology.
Therefore without human biological scientists, there is no realization of evolution.
Without a realization of evolution, there is no reality of evolution.

We know about the evolution of less than 100 years. Yes, evolution has been working in the human population as well regardless that we didn't know anything about it.

You still have not got my point and has to clue [not necessary agree with] to what I am trying to convey.
I don't expect you will ever do.

The most you can claim is
We know about the evolution [common and in the scientific realist's sense] of less than 100 years.
Evolution is an inferred scientific fact.
What is a scientific fact is at best merely a polished-conjectures [tentatives] by humans [biologists].
What we determine as 'evolution' per se from the biological basis may be wrong. This is very evident because many scientific theories has been rejected upon new evidences.

There is no way you can claim the absolute unconditional truth of evolution without humans involved.
So my point is whatever is reality, existing, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is claimed it cannot be done unconditionally; there are no standalone facts of reality without reference to humans.

Never mind if you don't get it, it is just a refresher exercise for my own sake.

[Walker]

Yet for the millions of years that we were completely unaware of it, it managed to plod along and slowly do its thing.

Well said!

Thank you.

In that case:

Addendum: “I eventually think, therefore I eventually am.”

[Age]

You missed my point.

Within the common sense and conventional sense, yes, evolution began and existed as a phenomenon regardless of humans. I am not abandoning this, but there are more refined thinking beyond the common and conventional sense.

In the ultimate rigorous sense and a paradigmatic shift, evolution cannot exist without the human factor.

Science-Biology is sustained by human biological scientists.
The realization and knowledge of evolution is conditioned with science-Biology.
Therefore without human biological scientists, there is no realization of evolution.
Without a realization of evolution, there is no reality of evolution.

We know about the evolution of less than 100 years. Yes, evolution has been working in the human population as well regardless that we didn't know anything about it.

You still have not got my point and has to clue [not necessary agree with] to what I am trying to convey.
I don't expect you will ever do.

The most you can claim is
We know about the evolution [common and in the scientific realist's sense] of less than 100 years.
Evolution is an inferred scientific fact.
What is a scientific fact is at best merely a polished-conjectures [tentatives] by humans [biologists].

So, what is 'now' a so-called 'scientific fact', to this one here, is only a 'conjecture', or in other words, just an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Yet, not too long ago, to this one anyway, 'science', itself, and thus 'scientific facts' as well were greater than 95% 'certainty' of 'absolute objective reality'.

What we determine as 'evolution' per se from the biological basis may be wrong. This is very evident because many scientific theories has been rejected upon new evidences.

There is no way you can claim the absolute unconditional truth of evolution without humans involved.

Well it would seem to be really rather absurd to claim that there was a way to claim, absolutely anything, if there were not human beings around, or involved, to say or claim things, correct?

So my point is whatever is reality, existing, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is claimed it cannot be done unconditionally; there are no standalone facts of reality without reference to humans.

There is. But you have just not yet evolved enough, having learned how to look at and see things for what they really are.

you are stuck in those very 'olden days' where it was thought and believed that things can be only be looked at and seen from and through the human being perspective only.

But how Wrong those beings were.

Never mind if you don't get it, it is just a refresher exercise for my own sake.

Okay.

[bahman]

You missed my point.

Within the common sense and conventional sense, yes, evolution began and existed as a phenomenon regardless of humans. I am not abandoning this, but there are more refined thinking beyond the common and conventional sense.

In the ultimate rigorous sense and a paradigmatic shift, evolution cannot exist without the human factor.

Science-Biology is sustained by human biological scientists.
The realization and knowledge of evolution is conditioned with science-Biology.
Therefore without human biological scientists, there is no realization of evolution.
Without a realization of evolution, there is no reality of evolution.

We know about the evolution of less than 100 years. Yes, evolution has been working in the human population as well regardless that we didn't know anything about it.

You still have not got my point and has to clue [not necessary agree with] to what I am trying to convey.
I don't expect you will ever do.

The most you can claim is
We know about the evolution [common and in the scientific realist's sense] of less than 100 years.
Evolution is an inferred scientific fact.
What is a scientific fact is at best merely a polished-conjectures [tentatives] by humans [biologists].
What we determine as 'evolution' per se from the biological basis may be wrong. This is very evident because many scientific theories has been rejected upon new evidences.

There is no way you can claim the absolute unconditional truth of evolution without humans involved.
So my point is whatever is reality, existing, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is claimed it cannot be done unconditionally; there are no standalone facts of reality without reference to humans.

Never mind if you don't get it, it is just a refresher exercise for my own sake.

Of course, you need humans to know evolution but that does not mean that evolution is not at work when there is no human! Evolution is correct, just look at the literature on this topic.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We know about the evolution of less than 100 years. Yes, evolution has been working in the human population as well regardless that we didn't know anything about it.

You still have not got my point and has to clue [not necessary agree with] to what I am trying to convey.
I don't expect you will ever do.

The most you can claim is
We know about the evolution [common and in the scientific realist's sense] of less than 100 years.
Evolution is an inferred scientific fact.
What is a scientific fact is at best merely a polished-conjectures [tentatives] by humans [biologists].
What we determine as 'evolution' per se from the biological basis may be wrong. This is very evident because many scientific theories has been rejected upon new evidences.

There is no way you can claim the absolute unconditional truth of evolution without humans involved.
So my point is whatever is reality, existing, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity is claimed it cannot be done unconditionally; there are no standalone facts of reality without reference to humans.

Never mind if you don't get it, it is just a refresher exercise for my own sake.

Of course, you need humans to know evolution but that does not mean that evolution is not at work when there is no human! Evolution is correct, just look at the literature on this topic.

As I had stated, the above is based on common sense and the conventional sense.

In more rigorous philosophical sense, that is not the case.
In more rigorous philosophical sense, there is no evolution that had gone before humans and still going on.

The point is before humans perceive, know and describe past or present reality [evolution in this case], therein humans is prior a process of the emergence and realization of reality with the collective-of-humans.

Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145

That you are naturally driven to conceive something exists prior to and independent of humans is driven by psychology as Hume had alluded to re causation.
The point is whenever humans has such impulses for such inferences of mind-independent reality, it is advisable they should suspend judgment as per the pyrrhonian skeptics or even by Hume and Kant.
Humans are too fallible to jump to a conclusion of a mind-independent reality.

If you really serious into philosophy, read this whole article from Russell to get an idea of the dilemma one is faced with reality;

http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html
APPEARANCE AND REALITY
IS there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it?
This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked.
When we have realized the obstacles in the way of a straightforward and confident answer, we shall be well launched on the study of philosophy -- for philosophy is merely the attempt to answer such ultimate questions, not carelessly and dogmatically, as we do in ordinary life and even in the sciences, but critically after exploring all that makes such questions puzzling, and after realizing all the vagueness and confusion that underlie our ordinary ideas.
.........
.........
Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that

perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
.............

As such, that you think evolution [actually it is a speculation as inferred] is really-real could turn out be conjectural which is true in a way as all scientific facts are at best polished-conjectural.

Suggest you read the above short chapter to widen your philosophical vista.