Distinction Without a Difference: Science and Theistic Theology!
Got your attention? Hah. Yah, no, not really gonna make that argument.. or perhaps I am, I don't know.
I'm just going to work through some bullet points and present a grip of conditional statements which, to me, seem necessary..
Of course.. I could be wrong but time to try...
So.. here we go.
Science: The universe has been around for X time.
Theistic Theology: The universe has been around for X time.
Options: For the purpose of this exercise we will be defining “universe” as “everything”. “Everything” will be defined as all material things.. which I assume includes “energy and matter” but may, at some point if we so perceive or infer it, include other categories.
“Our universe” will be defined as “everything plus all physical laws (real, not perceived)”
“Time” will be defined as “a relationship between two points of potential change.”
1.) If X is infinite then time is infinite. (Unless someone can explain to me how the "universe", meaning "everything", "thing" being "material things", can exist without time.. then by all means-- but me and my small mind, I can't even formulate a correct sentence without implying a relationship with time.)
2.) (a) If X is not infinite, (b) then time might be infinite but is not necessarily so.
2a.) If X is not infinite and time is infinite, then the "universe" came about within that time (-) randomly, or (-) not randomly.
(-) If the "universe" came about randomly, then it came about through "immaterial process", by definition.
(-) If the "universe" came about not randomly, then it came about through "immaterial process" through (sub1) "intelligent structure" or (sub2) "randomly necessitated structure".
(sub2) "Evolved" (Some people may take issue with the way I am colorfully describing this concept of "evolved" as "randomly necessitated structure", but I think it's pretty accurate.)
2b.) If time is not infinite then it came about "atemporally", by definition.
Science: “We will not accept as plausible the “immaterial” nor the “atemporal” since, at least according to all argumentation I’ve heard, to make relevant inferences about the “atemporal” is impossible and to perceive the “atemporal” is a contradiction in terms. Likewise for the immaterial.
If something is “observed” then it must be within the construct of time to be acted upon—since “to act” necessitates “time”. Likewise, “to infer” something relevant from these terms would require positive characteristics or perception.
So.. Science will not consider them. Thus, all options but 1 are excluded. Science must conclude 1.
Theology: “We can accept anything. This is the beauty of ad hoc argumentation. God could be atemporal. God could be part atemporal and part temporal. God could have created the universe through immaterial processes. God could have created the universe through pixie dust…. And so on. To attact any of these processes would just lead to more ad hoc argumentations.. at which point I’ll use more words which only have negative definitions and therefore.. are unassailable! On any point but their internal contradictions or practical irrelevance with regard to universal discourse (but not necessarily to life).
For instance, I can say that a invisible, incorporeal, atemporal, entity that only I can “experience” tells me what to do.. in this instance, the “idea” would definitely have practical relevance—for many reasons. In anycase, done.”
End: “Ad hoc argumentation”
Science: “Our universe” has existed for ~14 billion years. However, according to an earlier point, science must accept option 1… therefore, what was before “our universe”?
“X universe” was before “our universe.” “X universe” is “infinite in time”—however “time” may or may not be “time” as we perceive it now. Furthermore, the physical laws of “X universe” may or may not be the physical laws may or may not be applied in the same way as they are now.
Therefore, I can make the argument, and some people do: “Time as we now perceive it was, in fact, perceptually slower before the inception of “our universe”. Time was compressed, distorted, slowed to the limit of infinity. Therefore, while “our universe” is ~14 billion years old, the “universe” is ~14 billion years old + x amount of this “distorted time”.”
Or something along these lines.. My question then is this, how does this sort of argumentation based upon a theory of concepts without any practical relevance with regard to universal discourse or their internal contradictions.. differs from the ad hoc arguments of theistic theology as I presented?
Unless.. of course.. someone can please explain to me the “practical relevance with regard to universal discourse” that a concept of “time different then we perceive it now”, and only applicable within one theoretical time, can have? Or an application of physical law different than what we now perceive those applications to be, and only applicable in one theoretical time, can have?
Granted.. one might say, because X changes “x-much” in “y” conditions, then we can extrapolate that X would change “infinite”x-mich” in “z” conditions. But since “z” condition only exists within the theory.. never observed, never to be observed (e.g. “pre our universe”).. how is this different than T.T. ad hoc?
Any case.. just throwing out thoughts. I don’t have time to read or check.. so hopefully you guys can make sense out of it and rip it apart. I need to get back to reading contracts now.