2 of 3
2
On unscientifically verifiable beliefs and Faith
Posted: 09 December 2010 09:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Reerr

If the universe is a closed system, there cannot be anything outside of it acting upon it.  Thats the law.  If the universe comprises all existing matter and space, there cannot be anything existing outside of it.  There cannot be anything previous to time, as the term ‘previous’ logically entails time.  If the first law is a law at all, it cannot be violated, or it is no longer a law.  If the universe is eternal, which has not been ruled out, the second law is not violated simply because matter and energy are interchangeable.  Don’t fuss about scientific contradictions if your going to use supernatural and/or magical forces as a catalyst for your hypothesis.  Supernatural is BY DEFINITION unscientific.  I’m not a theoretical physicist, so I won’t weigh in on string theory.  Where did you get your Ph.D. in physics from?

The universe must have become a closed system after it began, and the force or energy or deity must have acted previous to time and outside the universe since there was no universe to speak of previous to its beginning.  Time itself and the first law, and everything else start with the beginning of the universe, a moment which had no yesterday.

The universe cannot be eternal because of the second law;  if the universe was eternal it would have reached already it’s point of maximum entropy, there would be no energy gradient and the universe would have coma to a stand still.  The universe was wound up at its beginning and is relentlessly winding down, one day it will stop.  Matter and energy indeed are interchangeable, but as energy transforms some of it is transformed into heat.  If the universe was eternal, all the energy would be in the form of an even temperature, without any gradient and the capacity of doing work.

So it is a scientific contradiction to say that the universe is eternal. 

You can call the necessary force or energy that caused the beginning of the universe whatever, magic if you want, but it is supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

I went to an engineering school , have an MBA and then there is Google and wikipedia !

 

The model fails at t = 10 raised to minus 43,  so we again see the natural laws being superseded by the supernatural, a mere coincidence you may add or mystery.  The big magic is a universe out of nothing trick!  Guess who could pull that one out?

I’m sorry, what?  What is t in this example?  Why does it fail?  How does the failure of a theory garner the supernatural conclusion?  I thought I already pointed out that Mystery ? Magic?  I never said the universe sprang out of nothing, thats you’re claim.  I stand by my statement: I don’t know.

t is time lapsed after the big bang;  if you take this fact by itself is not conclusive about the supernatural, but when you consider an outside force is originating the universe, it makes sense, it would be expected, the mathematical models will not work as you get close to the very beginning.

Not good enough, I’m afraid.  If you want to use a principle to form a logical conclusion, there cannot be exceptions.  That is what is known as a faulty premise.  Exceptions debunk ‘universality’.  Logic ain’t horseshoes or hand grenades, close enough ain’t good enough.

With respect to causality, the observation in the natural world is universal, although there are certain events such as atom decay, which seem to have no cause or there isn’t it seems a readily observable cause, which doesn’t really mean there is no cause; it should mean that if everything else in the natural universe has a cause, atom decay should also have a cause although we do not understand what causes atom decay.
On the other hand, given the universality of the second law, atoms should also be subject to TD2 and therefore atom decay must be be linked TD2 also,  an atom could run forever.

4. Suggesting that the only “logical” conclusion is a force outside the universe (especially considering the universe is defined as everything that exists) is merely giving up on the problem, not finding a solution.  Moreover, this type of conjecture suffers a logical penalty of incoherence, where the universe must include all that exists, so being outside the universe implies non-existence.  You may scoff and call my objection ‘mere semantics’, but unless you can come up with a better word for everything BUT god, you’re out of luck.


You are welcome to claim there is no incoherence, but I have demonstrated it.  Repeating incoherent statements, such as “by definition outside the natural order”, does not remove the conflict.  You are giving up the problem, by looking at a mystery of the natural world and declaring that the solution must be outside the natural world.  This is like trying to fix a car, and after giving it a thorough inspection, declaring that the problem must be outside the car.

Again, you have to look at the entire context;  the need for a beginning, which is widely accepted by physicists and the need for a cause.  This cause could not be within the universe; if the universe were cause to itself, it would need to have god-like characteristics, magic characteristics,  which it seems you dismiss right out.

If there is this cause, uncaused itself, and perfect, in a realm in which there is no time, space, or matter, unable to interact with the universe or else it will violate TD2, unable to differentiate between one moment and the next due to there being no time, unable to create anything due to TD1…what was the question again?  Oh, thats right, yes, I would throw it the key and try to help it out of prison.

Look, if there is no time, there is no choice.  Every action is simultaneous with every other, cause and effect become interchangeable.  The purpose of my brief concession was to make this point.  You wish to ask me what motivation would a deity have to choose to create the universe, and I object to the grammar of the question based upon the preordained rules governing this entity and the realm in which it must…not…exist?  Or exist…that might be a contradiction as well.

The force being outside space-time is obviously not bound by space time and if this force is a deity like force you cannot say what it can or it cannot do and there are not known laws of what this force was like before the beginning of the universe.  But is this deity does not exist, what is this force?  Mystery you say;  but this mystery must have god like characteristics, otherwise the universe would need to have those god like characteristics such as being cause to itself and develop the laws which govern the universe. 

So my hunch was right, you are not willing to answer my question at all.  I beg you give it a try.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 02:20 PM

Reerr

If the universe is a closed system, there cannot be anything outside of it acting upon it.  Thats the law.  If the universe comprises all existing matter and space, there cannot be anything existing outside of it.  There cannot be anything previous to time, as the term ‘previous’ logically entails time.  If the first law is a law at all, it cannot be violated, or it is no longer a law.  If the universe is eternal, which has not been ruled out, the second law is not violated simply because matter and energy are interchangeable.  Don’t fuss about scientific contradictions if your going to use supernatural and/or magical forces as a catalyst for your hypothesis.  Supernatural is BY DEFINITION unscientific.  I’m not a theoretical physicist, so I won’t weigh in on string theory.  Where did you get your Ph.D. in physics from?

The universe must have become a closed system after it began, and the force or energy or deity must have acted previous to time and outside the universe since there was no universe to speak of previous to its beginning.  Time itself and the first law, and everything else start with the beginning of the universe, a moment which had no yesterday.

The universe cannot be eternal because of the second law;  if the universe was eternal it would have reached already it’s point of maximum entropy, there would be no energy gradient and the universe would have coma to a stand still.  The universe was wound up at its beginning and is relentlessly winding down, one day it will stop.  Matter and energy indeed are interchangeable, but as energy transforms some of it is transformed into heat.  If the universe was eternal, all the energy would be in the form of an even temperature, without any gradient and the capacity of doing work.

So it is a scientific contradiction to say that the universe is eternal. 

You can call the necessary force or energy that caused the beginning of the universe whatever, magic if you want, but it is supernatural and supersedes the natural realm.

I went to an engineering school , have an MBA and then there is Google and wikipedia !

“deity must have acted previous to time” -> Do you not understand that this is a nonsensical phrase?  You have, yourself, stated that there was no “previous” to speak of, and yet somehow you claim a deity acted “previous”.  I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

Eternity is measured in time, can we agree on this?  If, a moment prior to the big bang, time also began, it is safe to say that the universe, having been in existence for the full measure of time, is eternal.  Of course, it may one day cease to exist, but if at that moment time is also eradicated, no one could be faulted for having regarded the universe as truly eternal.  If the universe existed when time began, and continues to exist until it ends, the only logical conclusion is that the universe IS eternal.

IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 02:20 PM

The model fails at t = 10 raised to minus 43,  so we again see the natural laws being superseded by the supernatural, a mere coincidence you may add or mystery.  The big magic is a universe out of nothing trick!  Guess who could pull that one out?

I’m sorry, what?  What is t in this example?  Why does it fail?  How does the failure of a theory garner the supernatural conclusion?  I thought I already pointed out that Mystery ? Magic?  I never said the universe sprang out of nothing, thats you’re claim.  I stand by my statement: I don’t know.

t is time lapsed after the big bang;  if you take this fact by itself is not conclusive about the supernatural, but when you consider an outside force is originating the universe, it makes sense, it would be expected, the mathematical models will not work as you get close to the very beginning.

It does not “make sense”, for the very reason that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS anything outside of existence.  Intuition and a religious upbringing may result in this conclusion, but science, mathematics, and logic do not yield to this thesis.

IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 02:20 PM

Not good enough, I’m afraid.  If you want to use a principle to form a logical conclusion, there cannot be exceptions.  That is what is known as a faulty premise.  Exceptions debunk ‘universality’.  Logic ain’t horseshoes or hand grenades, close enough ain’t good enough.

With respect to causality, the observation in the natural world is universal, although there are certain events such as atom decay, which seem to have no cause or there isn’t it seems a readily observable cause, which doesn’t really mean there is no cause; it should mean that if everything else in the natural universe has a cause, atom decay should also have a cause although we do not understand what causes atom decay.
On the other hand, given the universality of the second law, atoms should also be subject to TD2 and therefore atom decay must be be linked TD2 also,  an atom could run forever.

Perhaps the key lies in our study of quantum particles.  Like I said, you cannot build a logical conclusion on a faulty premise, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence in support.  You can form a hypothesis and test it, but this too would fail.  It is not good enough to consider the alternative and suggest it must be wrong, because this is then a mere false dichotomy. 

IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 02:20 PM

4. Suggesting that the only “logical” conclusion is a force outside the universe (especially considering the universe is defined as everything that exists) is merely giving up on the problem, not finding a solution.  Moreover, this type of conjecture suffers a logical penalty of incoherence, where the universe must include all that exists, so being outside the universe implies non-existence.  You may scoff and call my objection ‘mere semantics’, but unless you can come up with a better word for everything BUT god, you’re out of luck.


You are welcome to claim there is no incoherence, but I have demonstrated it.  Repeating incoherent statements, such as “by definition outside the natural order”, does not remove the conflict.  You are giving up the problem, by looking at a mystery of the natural world and declaring that the solution must be outside the natural world.  This is like trying to fix a car, and after giving it a thorough inspection, declaring that the problem must be outside the car.

Again, you have to look at the entire context;  the need for a beginning, which is widely accepted by physicists and the need for a cause.  This cause could not be within the universe; if the universe were cause to itself, it would need to have god-like characteristics, magic characteristics,  which it seems you dismiss right out.

Time began at the big bang, or so we assume based upon everything we have observed.  That is an isolated hypothesis, riddled with the problems you yourself have indicated with the t = 10 to whatever, and mathematical models falling apart at the onset.  This is a mystery, and mysteries do not require a magical answer.  I dismiss things that have no evidence to support them, much like I dismiss fortune-tellers, divining rods, and magic crystals.  You do the same, for all but one: the god you believe in a priori to the issue at hand. 

IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 02:20 PM

If there is this cause, uncaused itself, and perfect, in a realm in which there is no time, space, or matter, unable to interact with the universe or else it will violate TD2, unable to differentiate between one moment and the next due to there being no time, unable to create anything due to TD1…what was the question again?  Oh, thats right, yes, I would throw it the key and try to help it out of prison.

Look, if there is no time, there is no choice.  Every action is simultaneous with every other, cause and effect become interchangeable.  The purpose of my brief concession was to make this point.  You wish to ask me what motivation would a deity have to choose to create the universe, and I object to the grammar of the question based upon the preordained rules governing this entity and the realm in which it must…not…exist?  Or exist…that might be a contradiction as well.

The force being outside space-time is obviously not bound by space time and if this force is a deity like force you cannot say what it can or it cannot do and there are not known laws of what this force was like before the beginning of the universe.  But is this deity does not exist, what is this force?  Mystery you say;  but this mystery must have god like characteristics, otherwise the universe would need to have those god like characteristics such as being cause to itself and develop the laws which govern the universe.

Two things I would say to this.  First, time is not a system to bind, it merely is.  The problem is not that god is unable to move through time because he is bound by it, the problem is that without time, there is no before/after, no previous/posterior, no cause/effect.  This is not a limitation upon omnipotence, it is a fact about time.

Second, ‘no known laws” and “cannot say what it can or cannot do” are silly objections.  I’m not attempting to limit omnipotence, or enforce natural laws upon the supernatural.  I am saying that unless god created time, before he created the universe (and time), he wouldn’t have time to choose to create the universe.  It is simply nonsensical to speak of separate actions without time.  This is like claiming he can swim in a pool without water.  Your welcome to the claim, but you’re ignoring what the word ‘swim’ means, and skirting the argument.  Moreover, I am under no compulsion to accept such an outlandish proposal, now matter how many magic spells or magic books you have.

I’ll be ready with a rope when you decide to ascend from the rabbit hole.

IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 02:20 PM

So my hunch was right, you are not willing to answer my question at all.  I beg you give it a try.

I have answered your question in the only manner I can.  I am amused that you have, for some reason (which I won’t assume is cowardice, as you have so generously done so for me), ignored my question entirely, preferring to continue arguing for deism.  I will ask one more time, and if your next response does not contain an answer, don’t expect my contributions to this conversation to continue.

“What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?”

Lee.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Lee:

Hey !

Really do not have the time to answer to all your points at this time.

The thing is that before we start talking about the metaphysics of all this, we have to come to some sort of an agreement on the existence of a force or energy, which is not natural, this is which is not ruled by the natural laws, and caused the beginning of the universe; but
actually after a quick reading of your last comment, where it seemed you were willing to make a concession about the existence of this force, now you seem to have changed your mind and I feel we are farther apart in this issue. 

The reason for this requirement is that if we do not have an agreement on this premise, as soon as we advance just one bit in trying connect this force or deity with the abrahamic god,  you will monkey wrench the whole thing by saying, there cannot be such a force or such a deity, so the whole discussion becomes pointless.  We have to start this part of the discussion from the hypothesis at least that such force exists, that there is a probability that exists, that behind the mystery maybe we can find this force, or whatever. 

Otherwise we should continue our discussion about whether this force necessarily existed or not.

May the force be with you.

Best

Herman

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 12:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 04:48 PM

... we have to come to some sort of an agreement on the existence of a force or energy, which is not natural ...


How does that even make sense?

What exactly does not natural even mean?

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

SkepticX

What exactly does not natural even mean?

Means is outside the natural universe and therefore not subject to its laws.  If you follow the thread you will find why at worst,  a necessary fact, and at best,  a mystery.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 09 December 2010 05:31 PM

What exactly does not natural even mean?

Means is outside the natural universe and therefore not subject to its laws.  If you follow the thread you will find why at worst,  a necessary fact, and at best,  a mystery.

Anyone can toss out an abstract definition. I don’t think you can conceive of what “outside of nature” would really mean any better than I can. It’s one of those “the time before time” kinds of concepts. I think it’s all about the “not subject to its laws” part, which provides the excuse to freely presume.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Lee:

“deity must have acted previous to time” -> Do you not understand that this is a nonsensical phrase?  You have, yourself, stated that there was no “previous” to speak of, and yet somehow you claim a deity acted “previous”.  I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

You are getting picky with the details huh?  Its act is to create space time;  from its point of view there is no before or after;  time applies only to creation.  Eternity is a a state where time has no application,  a state of timelessness.

Eternity is measured in time, can we agree on this?  If, a moment prior to the big bang, time also began, it is safe to say that the universe, having been in existence for the full measure of time, is eternal.  Of course, it may one day cease to exist, but if at that moment time is also eradicated, no one could be faulted for having regarded the universe as truly eternal.  If the universe existed when time began, and continues to exist until it ends, the only logical conclusion is that the universe IS eternal.

No, I think your premise is wrong; as mentioned above, time doesn’t make any sense in the eternal state.There is no time, period.

It does not “make sense”, for the very reason that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS anything outside of existence.  Intuition and a religious upbringing may result in this conclusion, but science, mathematics, and logic do not yield to this thesis.

Actually is the other way around; it’s science and scientific evidence what leads us into the conclusion that there must be a beginning and that and force outside and previous to space-time caused this beginning.  Otherwise you would need to embrace that nothing = something or that 1=0 or that the universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing, which is nonsense.

Perhaps the key lies in our study of quantum particles.  Like I said, you cannot build a logical conclusion on a faulty premise, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence in support.  You can form a hypothesis and test it, but this too would fail.  It is not good enough to consider the alternative and suggest it must be wrong, because this is then a mere false dichotomy.

I will put it the other way around, mention one natural event you are 100%  sure it didn’t have a previous cause.

Time began at the big bang, or so we assume based upon everything we have observed.  That is an isolated hypothesis, riddled with the problems you yourself have indicated with the t = 10 to whatever, and mathematical models falling apart at the onset.  This is a mystery, and mysteries do not require a magical answer.  I dismiss things that have no evidence to support them, much like I dismiss fortune-tellers, divining rods, and magic crystals.  You do the same, for all but one: the god you believe in a priori to the issue at hand.

The big bang is the most accepted cosmological model by physicists and there is concrete evidence (Check CMBR in Google) and couple of guys got the Nobel prize because they discovered it !  So it isn’t an hypothesis, has been observed, measured, researched, etc.  It’ s science man.

Two things I would say to this.  First, time is not a system to bind, it merely is.  The problem is not that god is unable to move through time because he is bound by it, the problem is that without time, there is no before/after, no previous/posterior, no cause/effect.  This is not a limitation upon omnipotence, it is a fact about time.

Second, ‘no known laws” and “cannot say what it can or cannot do” are silly objections.  I’m not attempting to limit omnipotence, or enforce natural laws upon the supernatural.  I am saying that unless god created time, before he created the universe (and time), he wouldn’t have time to choose to create the universe.  It is simply nonsensical to speak of separate actions without time.  This is like claiming he can swim in a pool without water.  Your welcome to the claim, but you’re ignoring what the word ‘swim’ means, and skirting the argument.  Moreover, I am under no compulsion to accept such an outlandish proposal, now matter how many magic spells or magic books you have.


So it’s the time thing again;  you are may be right with the semantics when talking in states with and without time. But the idea is that this force or deity is not bound by time but at the same time can create time for the universe as it creates matter and energy and in the same way it is not bound by the laws of matter and energy.

So no magic spells or magic books,  just plain scientific evidence and common sense. 

I’ll be ready with a rope when you decide to ascend from the rabbit hole.

So my hunch was right, you are not willing to answer my question at all.  I beg you give it a try.

I have answered your question in the only manner I can.  I am amused that you have, for some reason (which I won’t assume is cowardice, as you have so generously done so for me), ignored my question entirely, preferring to continue arguing for deism.  I will ask one more time, and if your next response does not contain an answer, don’t expect my contributions to this conversation to continue.

“What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?”

I have stated several times that I am more than willing to answer your question, but all I ask from you, that after we start that part of the discussion you will not argue right out that there is no evidence for the existence of this force or this deity and therefore all the discussion is pointless.  We have to agree on this rule of the game first even if it is hypothetical for you.

Good night

H

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 December 2010 08:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10
IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

Lee:

“deity must have acted previous to time” -> Do you not understand that this is a nonsensical phrase?  You have, yourself, stated that there was no “previous” to speak of, and yet somehow you claim a deity acted “previous”.  I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

You are getting picky with the details huh?  Its act is to create space time;  from its point of view there is no before or after;  time applies only to creation.  Eternity is a a state where time has no application,  a state of timelessness.

Then your original use of the word was erroneous.  The universe couldn’t be eternal even if god doesn’t exist, because time does.  The word still does not repair the problem of using the word “previous” for a realm without time.  Time began with the universe, and will probably end with it; anything outside of time is, as you say, not constrained by it, but at the same time is unable to utilize it. 

Where did you get the idea that details don’t matter?

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

Eternity is measured in time, can we agree on this?  If, a moment prior to the big bang, time also began, it is safe to say that the universe, having been in existence for the full measure of time, is eternal.  Of course, it may one day cease to exist, but if at that moment time is also eradicated, no one could be faulted for having regarded the universe as truly eternal.  If the universe existed when time began, and continues to exist until it ends, the only logical conclusion is that the universe IS eternal.

No, I think your premise is wrong; as mentioned above, time doesn’t make any sense in the eternal state.There is no time, period.

Fair enough, but my objections remain.  I used the word eternal in the sense I assumed you were using it in, i.e. “the full measure of time”.  I was unaware “eternal” means devoid of time.  In that case, eternity is a rather immediate thing, containing both the beginning and end in the same instant.  Perhaps…you have some…any…evidence that such a place exists?  No?  Does it bother you that I seem to rely heavily on evidence before accepting what you say?

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

It does not “make sense”, for the very reason that there is no evidence to suggest that there IS anything outside of existence.  Intuition and a religious upbringing may result in this conclusion, but science, mathematics, and logic do not yield to this thesis.

Actually is the other way around; it’s science and scientific evidence what leads us into the conclusion that there must be a beginning and that and force outside and previous to space-time caused this beginning.  Otherwise you would need to embrace that nothing = something or that 1=0 or that the universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing, which is nonsense.

Science leads to the conclusion that time more than likely started at the big bang.  It does not say there is a force outside the universe, previous to space and or time, to do the requisite “causing” you are so boldly claiming.  Citation to disagree, please. 

“the universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing” - google creation ex nihilio.

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

Perhaps the key lies in our study of quantum particles.  Like I said, you cannot build a logical conclusion on a faulty premise, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence in support.  You can form a hypothesis and test it, but this too would fail.  It is not good enough to consider the alternative and suggest it must be wrong, because this is then a mere false dichotomy.

I will put it the other way around, mention one natural event you are 100%  sure it didn’t have a previous cause.

Your asking me to prove a negative regarding quantum particles on a message board…I’m going with no.  It’s your argument, prove those particles have a cause.

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

Time began at the big bang, or so we assume based upon everything we have observed.  That is an isolated hypothesis, riddled with the problems you yourself have indicated with the t = 10 to whatever, and mathematical models falling apart at the onset.  This is a mystery, and mysteries do not require a magical answer.  I dismiss things that have no evidence to support them, much like I dismiss fortune-tellers, divining rods, and magic crystals.  You do the same, for all but one: the god you believe in a priori to the issue at hand.

The big bang is the most accepted cosmological model by physicists and there is concrete evidence (Check CMBR in Google) and couple of guys got the Nobel prize because they discovered it !  So it isn’t an hypothesis, has been observed, measured, researched, etc.  It’ s science man.

The time part is the isolated hypothesis, because that moment, as I said before, is not included in the theory.  It is a hypothesis, because it has not yet been observed.  It’s practically science fiction until we learn a lot more about that first instant.

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

Two things I would say to this.  First, time is not a system to bind, it merely is.  The problem is not that god is unable to move through time because he is bound by it, the problem is that without time, there is no before/after, no previous/posterior, no cause/effect.  This is not a limitation upon omnipotence, it is a fact about time.

Second, ‘no known laws” and “cannot say what it can or cannot do” are silly objections.  I’m not attempting to limit omnipotence, or enforce natural laws upon the supernatural.  I am saying that unless god created time, before he created the universe (and time), he wouldn’t have time to choose to create the universe.  It is simply nonsensical to speak of separate actions without time.  This is like claiming he can swim in a pool without water.  Your welcome to the claim, but you’re ignoring what the word ‘swim’ means, and skirting the argument.  Moreover, I am under no compulsion to accept such an outlandish proposal, now matter how many magic spells or magic books you have.


So it’s the time thing again;  you are may be right with the semantics when talking in states with and without time. But the idea is that this force or deity is not bound by time but at the same time can create time for the universe as it creates matter and energy and in the same way it is not bound by the laws of matter and energy.

Gee, sounds like magic to me…

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

So no magic spells or magic books,  just plain scientific evidence and common sense.

Oh, right, ok, its not magic, its common sense…um…what?  A force, unbound by time(though time does not bind), can create time (when did he do this?), create matter and energy (there goes thermodynamics, right down the pooper), and not bound by laws (oh, darn, there goes my thermodynamics objection).  How can you possibly say all these things and then call it common sense, even just not flat out call it magic?  And to call it SCIENCE?  Show me the evidence, lay out your hypothesis and test it.  This is philosophical sophistry, not science or common sense.

IAMWHOIAM - 10 December 2010 12:12 AM

So my hunch was right, you are not willing to answer my question at all.  I beg you give it a try.

I have answered your question in the only manner I can.  I am amused that you have, for some reason (which I won’t assume is cowardice, as you have so generously done so for me), ignored my question entirely, preferring to continue arguing for deism.  I will ask one more time, and if your next response does not contain an answer, don’t expect my contributions to this conversation to continue.

“What logical argument do you have that spans the deism-theism gap?”

I have stated several times that I am more than willing to answer your question, but all I ask from you, that after we start that part of the discussion you will not argue right out that there is no evidence for the existence of this force or this deity and therefore all the discussion is pointless.  We have to agree on this rule of the game first even if it is hypothetical for you.

Good night

H

I don’t have to agree on anything, and I don’t intend to.  It is a simple request; if the argument were sound, it would already be under discussion.  I will continue arguing that there is no evidence to suggest this “force”, but I will address your arguments for theism as though deism were conceded (thats how it works with “for the sake of argument”).  I said I wouldn’t respond, but as you’re building this up so fervently, I can only hope its worth the wait.

Ciao

Lee.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2010 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Lee;

I was out for the week-end.

Then your original use of the word was erroneous.  The universe couldn’t be eternal even if god doesn’t exist, because time does.  The word still does not repair the problem of using the word “previous” for a realm without time.  Time began with the universe, and will probably end with it; anything outside of time is, as you say, not constrained by it, but at the same time is unable to utilize it.

Where did you get the idea that details don’t matter?

The important aspects of this discussion are that the universe (space-time) must have had a beginning and that an outside force caused this beginning;  there are many details that are not really important such as finding the exact meaning of some words.

Previous applies to the natural world in which we are,  and not to the causing force or deity (your word).

Your premise that anything outside space time, specially the deity, cannot utilize it doesn’t make any sense.  It is as if I build an aquarium and put some fish in it,  I am not inside the aquarium but I can deal with it at any time.

Fair enough, but my objections remain.  I used the word eternal in the sense I assumed you were using it in, i.e. “the full measure of time”.  I was unaware “eternal” means devoid of time.  In that case, eternity is a rather immediate thing, containing both the beginning and end in the same instant.  Perhaps…you have some…any…evidence that such a place exists?  No?  Does it bother you that I seem to rely heavily on evidence before accepting what you say?

It’s just a logical conclusion that the force (the deity)  causing the beginning of the universe must have certain characteristics, such as eternal.  If it doesn’t then it could not have caused the beginning of the universe, since it would need a cause itself.  Or we would need to attribute the Universe the deity’s power and this is pantheism. Or we would need to state that the universe aprang spontaneously out of nothing, which we agree is not the case.

I will put it the other way around, mention one natural event you are 100%  sure it didn’t have a previous cause.

Your asking me to prove a negative regarding quantum particles on a message board…I’m going with no.  It’s your argument, prove those particles have a cause.

Is not proving a negative.  I am saying that all natural events have a cause;  you are saying that some natural events don’t have a cause.  I do not know of any event which doesn’t have a cause, therefore I ask you to point one case (not a negative)  that doesn’t have a cause.  If there was one, it would be easy to spot it.

But any way, if you stick to the idea the universe didn’t have a cause, then you must stick to the idea that it sprang out of nothing;  but you said you never abide by that concept.  Then yes, but no ,  but yes?

The big bang is the most accepted cosmological model by physicists and there is concrete evidence (Check CMBR in Google) and couple of guys got the Nobel prize because they discovered it !  So it isn’t an hypothesis, has been observed, measured, researched, etc.  It’ s science man.

The time part is the isolated hypothesis, because that moment, as I said before, is not included in the theory.  It is a hypothesis, because it has not yet been observed.  It’s practically science fiction until we learn a lot more about that first instant.

Again, theists’ positions are criticized because they go against science;  now you have in front of you what most physicists think the beginning of the universe was like, they have built mathematical model which work up until the very first moment the universe began;  scientists have observed this phenomenom and some have won a Nobel prize for this;  and you say it’s science fiction and call it mystery.
Then rather we should criticize your atheism for evading the available scientific evidence.
If this were so then lets retire all scientists a physicists, specially those who are spending our tax money.

Oh, right, ok, its not magic, its common sense…um…what?  A force, unbound by time(though time does not bind), can create time (when did he do this?), create matter and energy (there goes thermodynamics, right down the pooper), and not bound by laws (oh, darn, there goes my thermodynamics objection).  How can you possibly say all these things and then call it common sense, even just not flat out call it magic?  And to call it SCIENCE?  Show me the evidence, lay out your hypothesis and test it.  This is philosophical sophistry, not science or common sense.

Again,  TD2 (scientific evidence for it) —->  Beginning =  Big Bang (scientif evidence for it)—->  Causing force (sicientic evidence in causation and/or common sense)  or else nothing= something or 1=0 or “the sprang out of nothing trick” (all contradictions).  Logic and boolean logic is a most important aspect of the scientific process and of common sense.

I don’t have to agree on anything, and I don’t intend to.  It is a simple request; if the argument were sound, it would already be under discussion.  I will continue arguing that there is no evidence to suggest this “force”, but I will address your arguments for theism as though deism were conceded (thats how it works with “for the sake of argument”).  I said I wouldn’t respond, but as you’re building this up so fervently, I can only hope its worth the wait.

 

For this deity causing the beginning of the universe, given its perfection (all the attributes we can think of god and no need to get into the details), what would move him into creating the universe?  Was he bored and needed something to play around with?  Certainly not, it would no be God if this were the case;  and thus we could come up with many, many different possibilities and should arrive to the same conclusion.

Then what would be the reason?  The only reason which acceptable is because of love;  God wants to share his divinity with us because of love. There is no other reason And what can he love ?  If you have a dog,  you can say you love your dog, but you don’t really mean it, you like your dog or something like this.  In the same manner, what does God love?  He loves what is of his own nature,  and therefore we have been necessarily created in His own image and resemblance, that is,  we are of the same nature as God himself, loved by Him and therefore we can love him back. 

So this deity, because of love,  is the the God of Abraham, who loves you and me more than you can ever imagine.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 December 2010 06:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

Welcome back.

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 06:48 PM

Then your original use of the word was erroneous.  The universe couldn’t be eternal even if god doesn’t exist, because time does.  The word still does not repair the problem of using the word “previous” for a realm without time.  Time began with the universe, and will probably end with it; anything outside of time is, as you say, not constrained by it, but at the same time is unable to utilize it.

Where did you get the idea that details don’t matter?

The important aspects of this discussion are that the universe (space-time) must have had a beginning and that an outside force caused this beginning;  there are many details that are not really important such as finding the exact meaning of some words.

Previous applies to the natural world in which we are,  and not to the causing force or deity (your word).

Your premise that anything outside space time, specially the deity, cannot utilize it doesn’t make any sense.  It is as if I build an aquarium and put some fish in it,  I am not inside the aquarium but I can deal with it at any time.

1.  There is nothing more important in a debate than ensuring that we are understanding each other, and agreed upon definitions for terms is of utmost importance.  A word like ‘eternal’ fits a very different argument if it means timeless, rather than ‘for all time’.  If the meaning of a word is not important, why use it?  What possible reason could there be for words if not the meaning?

2.  Previous applies to a moment before another moment.  Differentiation between moments requires the presence of time.  If your deity is ‘timeless’ or ‘outside of time’, then the grammar of time is unavailable to it, as is the ability to use time.  This is a failure of coherence.

3.  Your assertion that there IS anything outside space-time has no evidential basis.  Your aquarium demonstration is a bad analogy, because time exists both inside and outside the aquarium.  WHERE and WHEN is this place?  Let me guess…nowhere and no-when, amirite?  Now who’s pulling something spontaneously out of nothing?

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 06:48 PM

Fair enough, but my objections remain.  I used the word eternal in the sense I assumed you were using it in, i.e. “the full measure of time”.  I was unaware “eternal” means devoid of time.  In that case, eternity is a rather immediate thing, containing both the beginning and end in the same instant.  Perhaps…you have some…any…evidence that such a place exists?  No?  Does it bother you that I seem to rely heavily on evidence before accepting what you say?

It’s just a logical conclusion that the force (the deity)  causing the beginning of the universe must have certain characteristics, such as eternal.  If it doesn’t then it could not have caused the beginning of the universe, since it would need a cause itself.  Or we would need to attribute the Universe the deity’s power and this is pantheism. Or we would need to state that the universe aprang spontaneously out of nothing, which we agree is not the case.

That is not a logical conclusion, because the ‘force’ could have been caused by another force, and still caused the universe.  Needing a cause does not mean it could not BE a cause.  Occam’s Razor would suggest that more than one force is less likely than a single force, but this merely brings you back to the core issue: causation.  You have not established this in fact, nor in principle.  Your hypothesis must stand on it’s own feet, you cannot merely ridicule every other possibility and then point to your own.

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 06:48 PM

I will put it the other way around, mention one natural event you are 100%  sure it didn’t have a previous cause.

Your asking me to prove a negative regarding quantum particles on a message board…I’m going with no.  It’s your argument, prove those particles have a cause.

Is not proving a negative.  I am saying that all natural events have a cause;  you are saying that some natural events don’t have a cause.  I do not know of any event which doesn’t have a cause, therefore I ask you to point one case (not a negative)  that doesn’t have a cause.  If there was one, it would be easy to spot it.

But any way, if you stick to the idea the universe didn’t have a cause, then you must stick to the idea that it sprang out of nothing;  but you said you never abide by that concept.  Then yes, but no ,  but yes?

1.  We’re back to where we started: quantum particles.  They apparently spring into existence uncaused.  Your ‘principle of causality’ lives or dies on the assertion that every thing that begins to exist has a cause.  Unless you can provide causality for quantum particles, your dead in the water.  I have provided everything that is required of me to reject your argument.  Drop it, as it will be ignored from here on out.

2.  Did you google Creation Ex Nihilio like I asked?  I said “I don’t know” whether the universe was caused or not, but I find no compelling reason to believe your claim that it sprang out of nothing by magic, or that you know what possesses this magic power, and what that thing wants.

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 06:48 PM

The big bang is the most accepted cosmological model by physicists and there is concrete evidence (Check CMBR in Google) and couple of guys got the Nobel prize because they discovered it !  So it isn’t an hypothesis, has been observed, measured, researched, etc.  It’ s science man.

The time part is the isolated hypothesis, because that moment, as I said before, is not included in the theory.  It is a hypothesis, because it has not yet been observed.  It’s practically science fiction until we learn a lot more about that first instant.

Again, theists’ positions are criticized because they go against science;  now you have in front of you what most physicists think the beginning of the universe was like, they have built mathematical model which work up until the very first moment the universe began;  scientists have observed this phenomenom and some have won a Nobel prize for this;  and you say it’s science fiction and call it mystery.
Then rather we should criticize your atheism for evading the available scientific evidence.
If this were so then lets retire all scientists a physicists, specially those who are spending our tax money.

You’re twisting my words, and you know it.  Stop lying for jesus and re-read what I wrote if you need a refresher:

THE TIME PART IS THE ISOLATED HYPOTHESIS, because THAT MOMENT, as I said before, is NOT INCLUDED IN THE THEORY.”(emphasis added)

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 06:48 PM

Oh, right, ok, its not magic, its common sense…um…what?  A force, unbound by time(though time does not bind), can create time (when did he do this?), create matter and energy (there goes thermodynamics, right down the pooper), and not bound by laws (oh, darn, there goes my thermodynamics objection).  How can you possibly say all these things and then call it common sense, even just not flat out call it magic?  And to call it SCIENCE?  Show me the evidence, lay out your hypothesis and test it.  This is philosophical sophistry, not science or common sense.

Again,  TD2 (scientific evidence for it) —->  Beginning =  Big Bang (scientif evidence for it)—->  Causing force (sicientic evidence in causation and/or common sense)  or else nothing= something or 1=0 or “the sprang out of nothing trick” (all contradictions).  Logic and boolean logic is a most important aspect of the scientific process and of common sense.

Your hypothesis violates Thermodynamics.  Your hypothesis attempts to explain phenomena not encompassed in the BBT.  Your hypothesis asserts causation by use of a premise you cannot justify.  Your mischaracterization of what you believe to be the only alternative constitutes a rewording of your own faulty hypothesis in place of said alternative, followed a text-book false dichotomy.  Your hypothesis and ‘common sense’ don’t belong in the same ROOM together, much less the same sentence.  However, the most egregious of your shortcomings is that science has shown, time and again, that ‘common sense’ (also known by it’s less desirable appellation: ‘intuition’) is rarely the truth.  You are attempting what is commonly known as the ‘transfer’, in which you attempt to place your beliefs alongside respected science, and then suggest that the two are related.  I already said it, but apparently this phrase requires repeating: “This is philosophical sophistry, not science or common sense.”

PLEASE google Creation Ex Nihilio, and get off the Frank Turek Fan-site…

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 06:48 PM

For this deity causing the beginning of the universe, given its perfection (all the attributes we can think of god and no need to get into the details), what would move him into creating the universe?  Was he bored and needed something to play around with?  Certainly not, it would no be God if this were the case;  and thus we could come up with many, many different possibilities and should arrive to the same conclusion.

Then what would be the reason?  The only reason which acceptable is because of love;  God wants to share his divinity with us because of love. There is no other reason And what can he love ?  If you have a dog,  you can say you love your dog, but you don’t really mean it, you like your dog or something like this.  In the same manner, what does God love?  He loves what is of his own nature,  and therefore we have been necessarily created in His own image and resemblance, that is,  we are of the same nature as God himself, loved by Him and therefore we can love him back. 

So this deity, because of love,  is the the God of Abraham, who loves you and me more than you can ever imagine.

“given its perfection” - “we are of the same nature as God himself”’

And yet we are not perfect…

“God wants to share his divinity with us because of love.”

And yet we are not divine…

“(all the attributes we can think of god and no need to get into the details)”

And yet you disagree about these attributes with almost every other constituent of your faith…

“The only reason which acceptable is because of love”

You’re appealing to emotion in order to justify a bold faced assertion.  There is no evidence to suggest that the force that created everything did so for love, this is merely what you wish to believe.  This is what you have been told is true.  You’re a mere parrot, echoing the dogma of our fearful ancestors as though this were wisdom.  You’re characterization of the abrahamic faith is what happens when you choose passages a la carte.  This concept of ‘mere love’, or ‘mere christianity’ as CS Lewis put it, does not bear weight amid its numerous contradictions, incitements to violence and hatred, and endorsements of genocide and racism.  If we are talking about the god of abraham, we are talking about either islam, judaism, or christianity.  Pick your poison, I have passages potent enough for three kings.

Furthermore, this fails to meet the criteria of the question.  I asked for a LOGICAL argument, not your opinion.

Lee

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2010 09:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Lee:

1.  There is nothing more important in a debate than ensuring that we are understanding each other, and agreed upon definitions for terms is of utmost importance.  A word like ‘eternal’ fits a very different argument if it means timeless, rather than ‘for all time’.  If the meaning of a word is not important, why use it?  What possible reason could there be for words if not the meaning?

2.  Previous applies to a moment before another moment.  Differentiation between moments requires the presence of time.  If your deity is ‘timeless’ or ‘outside of time’, then the grammar of time is unavailable to it, as is the ability to use time.  This is a failure of coherence.

3.  Your assertion that there IS anything outside space-time has no evidential basis.  Your aquarium demonstration is a bad analogy, because time exists both inside and outside the aquarium.  WHERE and WHEN is this place?  Let me guess…nowhere and no-when, amirite?  Now who’s pulling something spontaneously out of nothing?

More important is to address the real issues and not to play around with the semantics of some of the words as you been trying to.  It doesn’t matter that we say previous or outside space-time.  From the deity’s point of view, there is no previously, but from our point of view, within space-time, the concept of previous applies.  And the aquarium analogy is good enough to understand that even though the deity is not bound by time he can intervene as he wishes as I would with my aquarium; for me from within space-time, for the deity whichever is the right description he wishes to act;  the exact description is a detail, the important thing is that he does act.

And of course the deity creates the Universe, not out of nothing, but out of its power to creating it.

The problem is that you keep going back to not accepting what the scientific evidence is telling us with respect to the fact there was a beginning of the universe.

Fair enough, but my objections remain.  I used the word eternal in the sense I assumed you were using it in, i.e. “the full measure of time”.  I was unaware “eternal” means devoid of time.  In that case, eternity is a rather immediate thing, containing both the beginning and end in the same instant.  Perhaps…you have some…any…evidence that such a place exists?  No?  Does it bother you that I seem to rely heavily on evidence before accepting what you say?

It’s just a logical conclusion that the force (the deity)  causing the beginning of the universe must have certain characteristics, such as eternal.  If it doesn’t then it could not have caused the beginning of the universe, since it would need a cause itself.  Or we would need to attribute the Universe the deity’s power and this is pantheism. Or we would need to state that the universe aprang spontaneously out of nothing, which we agree is not the case.

That is not a logical conclusion, because the ‘force’ could have been caused by another force, and still caused the universe.  Needing a cause does not mean it could not BE a cause.  Occam’s Razor would suggest that more than one force is less likely than a single force, but this merely brings you back to the core issue: causation.  You have not established this in fact, nor in principle.  Your hypothesis must stand on it’s own feet, you cannot merely ridicule every other possibility and then point to your own.

The deity, by definition is eternal, otherwise it would not be a deity, it would be part of creation;  and as we have a agreed, being eternal, this is timeless, there is no previous, and therefore there cannot be a cause to the deity.  And what’s the alternative to the deity again? The universe out of nothing trick, the nothing = something contradiction

I will put it the other way around, mention one natural event you are 100%  sure it didn’t have a previous cause.

Your asking me to prove a negative regarding quantum particles on a message board…I’m going with no.  It’s your argument, prove those particles have a cause.

Is not proving a negative.  I am saying that all natural events have a cause;  you are saying that some natural events don’t have a cause.  I do not know of any event which doesn’t have a cause, therefore I ask you to point one case (not a negative)  that doesn’t have a cause.  If there was one, it would be easy to spot it.

But any way, if you stick to the idea the universe didn’t have a cause, then you must stick to the idea that it sprang out of nothing;  but you said you never abide by that concept.  Then yes, but no ,  but yes?

1.  We’re back to where we started: quantum particles.  They apparently spring into existence uncaused.  Your ‘principle of causality’ lives or dies on the assertion that every thing that begins to exist has a cause.  Unless you can provide causality for quantum particles, your dead in the water.  I have provided everything that is required of me to reject your argument.  Drop it, as it will be ignored from here on out.

2.  Did you google Creation Ex Nihilio like I asked?  I said “I don’t know” whether the universe was caused or not, but I find no compelling reason to believe your claim that it sprang out of nothing by magic, or that you know what possesses this magic power, and what that thing wants.

Quantum fluctuation and the origin of the universe is a theoretical contraption by physicists to explaining the universe without a deity.  And they make all sorts of assumptions to develop theoretical models, such as the energy of the universe is equal to 0 or come up with string theory while other physicists laugh at string theory;  and Hawking quotes Weinberg, and Weinberg quotes Krauss and Krauss quotes Hawking and Hawking gets rich with his savvy marketing.

So again, the scientific evidence (TD2) is that the universe had a beginning (big-bang) and that necessarily a force caused it like everything else we see in the universe. The rest is just fancy and desperate theoretical footwork.  And the laws of TD apply to quantum mechanics always (there are some efforts to find exceptions such as Poincaré Recurrence Theorem, but it is just that a theorem), so you cannot have real spontaneously creation out of nothing; as you say above” They apparently spring into existence uncaused”, but given the laws of TD, energy must be conserved and for every transformation of energy there is an increasing of the entropy, not a decreasing.

The big bang is the most accepted cosmological model by physicists and there is concrete evidence (Check CMBR in Google) and couple of guys got the Nobel prize because they discovered it !  So it isn’t an hypothesis, has been observed, measured, researched, etc.  It’ s science man.

The time part is the isolated hypothesis, because that moment, as I said before, is not included in the theory.  It is a hypothesis, because it has not yet been observed.  It’s practically science fiction until we learn a lot more about that first instant.

Again, theists’ positions are criticized because they go against science;  now you have in front of you what most physicists think the beginning of the universe was like, they have built mathematical model which work up until the very first moment the universe began;  scientists have observed this phenomenom and some have won a Nobel prize for this;  and you say it’s science fiction and call it mystery.
Then rather we should criticize your atheism for evading the available scientific evidence.
If this were so then lets retire all scientists a physicists, specially those who are spending our tax money.

You’re twisting my words, and you know it.  Stop lying for jesus and re-read what I wrote if you need a refresher:

”THE TIME PART IS THE ISOLATED HYPOTHESIS, because THAT MOMENT, as I said before, is NOT INCLUDED IN THE THEORY.”(emphasis added)

But again that’s a detail in comparison to the fact there was a beginning, which is the important conclusion of the cosmological model.

Oh, right, ok, its not magic, its common sense…um…what?  A force, unbound by time(though time does not bind), can create time (when did he do this?), create matter and energy (there goes thermodynamics, right down the pooper), and not bound by laws (oh, darn, there goes my thermodynamics objection).  How can you possibly say all these things and then call it common sense, even just not flat out call it magic?  And to call it SCIENCE?  Show me the evidence, lay out your hypothesis and test it.  This is philosophical sophistry, not science or common sense.

Again,  TD2 (scientific evidence for it) —->  Beginning =  Big Bang (scientif evidence for it)—->  Causing force (sicientic evidence in causation and/or common sense)  or else nothing= something or 1=0 or “the sprang out of nothing trick” (all contradictions).  Logic and boolean logic is a most important aspect of the scientific process and of common sense.

Your hypothesis violates Thermodynamics.  Your hypothesis attempts to explain phenomena not encompassed in the BBT.  Your hypothesis asserts causation by use of a premise you cannot justify.  Your mischaracterization of what you believe to be the only alternative constitutes a rewording of your own faulty hypothesis in place of said alternative, followed a text-book false dichotomy.  Your hypothesis and ‘common sense’ don’t belong in the same ROOM together, much less the same sentence.  However, the most egregious of your shortcomings is that science has shown, time and again, that ‘common sense’ (also known by it’s less desirable appellation: ‘intuition’) is rarely the truth.  You are attempting what is commonly known as the ‘transfer’, in which you attempt to place your beliefs alongside respected science, and then suggest that the two are related.  I already said it, but apparently this phrase requires repeating: “This is philosophical sophistry, not science or common sense.”

PLEASE google Creation Ex Nihilio, and get off the Frank Turek Fan-site…

I stand by the idea that basic to my argument is the universality of the second law of thermodynamics and the need to abide by its consequences which are very clear and straight forward, most important in this discussion the conclusion that the universe must have had a beginning.  In the beginning though there is a need that something must wind up the universe, since it has been unwinding ever since that first moment;  if the universe had existed without a beginning, it would have wound down completely long time ago. So my position does not violate the second law, the other way around the second law is basic to affirm the universe had a beginning.

Never heard of Frank Turek.  Really.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2010 09:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

Lee:

IAMWHOIAM - 13 December 2010 02:48 PM
For this deity causing the beginning of the universe, given its perfection (all the attributes we can think of god and no need to get into the details), what would move him into creating the universe?  Was he bored and needed something to play around with?  Certainly not, it would no be God if this were the case;  and thus we could come up with many, many different possibilities and should arrive to the same conclusion.

Then what would be the reason?  The only reason which acceptable is because of love;  God wants to share his divinity with us because of love. There is no other reason And what can he love ?  If you have a dog,  you can say you love your dog, but you don’t really mean it, you like your dog or something like this.  In the same manner, what does God love?  He loves what is of his own nature,  and therefore we have been necessarily created in His own image and resemblance, that is,  we are of the same nature as God himself, loved by Him and therefore we can love him back.

So this deity, because of love,  is the the God of Abraham, who loves you and me more than you can ever imagine.

“given its perfection” - “we are of the same nature as God himself”’

And yet we are not perfect…

“God wants to share his divinity with us because of love.”

And yet we are not divine…

”(all the attributes we can think of god and no need to get into the details)”

And yet you disagree about these attributes with almost every other constituent of your faith…

“The only reason which acceptable is because of love”

You’re appealing to emotion in order to justify a bold faced assertion.  There is no evidence to suggest that the force that created everything did so for love, this is merely what you wish to believe.  This is what you have been told is true.  You’re a mere parrot, echoing the dogma of our fearful ancestors as though this were wisdom.  You’re characterization of the abrahamic faith is what happens when you choose passages a la carte.  This concept of ‘mere love’, or ‘mere christianity’ as CS Lewis put it, does not bear weight amid its numerous contradictions, incitements to violence and hatred, and endorsements of genocide and racism.  If we are talking about the god of abraham, we are talking about either islam, judaism, or christianity.  Pick your poison, I have passages potent enough for three kings.

Furthermore, this fails to meet the criteria of the question.  I asked for a LOGICAL argument, not your opinion.


It seems you did not understand the point.

Here it goes again.

The point in discussion is, Ok, let’s agree for a moment that there is a force, a deity who created the universe.  Then given this premise, how this deity is the god of Abraham, that is a God who relates with us, and not just a deity who does not care, who is oblivious with respect to creation and specifically with respect to us.

My logical argument starts by asking a question, why a deity, who is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. that has (again in human speak) everything, that needs nothing, would create the universe and mankind with it?

The question and its answer are most important in the logical argument assuming we were created.  You can offer many possibilities of why He did it, but there is only one logical answer, all the other possibilities, for instance saying that he was bored and needed something to have fun with, contradict the deity’s very nature and his perfection.

And the only possible reason, which is not a contradiction, is he did it because of love; it isn’t what I wish to believe, it isn’t because I was told,  it’s the only possible answer.  Again, given the premise this deity created the universe (you cannot say that there isn’t one since you agreed that for the sake of this discussion there is one), which is a logically acceptable reason that explains the creation of the universe and us? The only acceptable logical answer is because of love.

Then I asked where there can be love?  who can love each other?  Again, beings that are of the same nature and that are conscious of their nature.  So necessarily we have been created in this deity’s own image and resemblance, in his own nature.  And this doesn’t mean nor say we are the exactly the same, but the logical conclusion is that we must be of the same nature to be loved by Him. Definitely we are not His pets!

No parroting, no emotion, no fear.  Just the logical conclusion.  If this weren’t the reason, then what would be a possible reason?

H

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 December 2010 10:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

State your hypothesis, perform the necessary science, write the paper.  I’m done discussing quantum physics with a random stranger who can’t see past his own ego.

Claim victory, gloat, enjoy, I no longer care.  I don’t have the energy to fight this nonsense anymore, you people don’t listen to reason.  Our discussion has come full circle; if you wish to continue the debate, just copy and paste my responses from the beginning.  You’re claiming it was magic, just keep that in mind.

Blood from a stone, man, blood from a stone.

Lee.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2010 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  57
Joined  2010-09-19

In my opinion, dhs’ initial comment for this discussion about “unscientifically verifiable beliefs and Faith”  has turned to exactly the opposite.  In fact, scientific evidence and generally accepted theories point to the fact that the universe had a beginning, that an outside force outside space-time caused this beginning, that this force has all the characteristics of a deity, and that this deity is the abrahamic god.

The scientific evidence is mainly the universality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LTD) which implies the Universe , or whatever version of it you may come up with (multiverses or bouncing ones), must have had a beginning.  The observable evidence for this beginning is the Big Bang, the cosmology most accepted by physicists and which occurred some 13,7 billion years ago.  In addition, everything in the natural world has a cause;  therefore the universe being “the” natural world must also have had a cause.  The alternative would be that it sprang spontaneously out of nothing and that it embodies in itself all the laws that make it work;  in other words the universe itself would be god-like.

Attempts have been made to find exceptions to the 2LTD, such as Poincare’s Recurrence Theorem, but they are just that, theorems and theories.  The idea behind these theories is pretty much like opening a bottle with air molecules in a room and pretending that some day exactly those molecules will be back in the bottle.  The probability is so low that it would take many universe lifetimes for it to happen. And this is just the molecules in a bottle, but pretending that the arrow of entropy will completely reverse in the Universe is preposterous.

Sir Arthur Eddington’s comment on the 2LTD is eloquent regarding its universality:

“If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

And Albert Einstein’s:

“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”

Other ideas such as string theory and virtual particles are just part of theories that try to explain a Universe without a cause. And generally these theories are not widely accepted by the scientific community;  for instance, many physicists are working in M-theory while others simply laugh at it.

Then there are amazing facts that science has shown to us such as the cosmological constant and the unlikely but abundant existence of carbon in the universe, which do not prove the existence of a designer, but do provide strong support for the argument that there should be one.

Therefore the scientific evidence clearly points to a beginning of the Universe and to a cause behind this beginning.

This cause or force must have have the characteristics of a deity, this is eternal, infinite, omniscient, etc otherwise it too would be subject to the 2LTD. And the question of what was before this deity or who created it doesn’t make sense since time was created with the universe and therefore before doesn’t apply to this deity.

Then the question that naturally arises, is ok, there seems to be a force or a deity that caused the beginning of the universe, how do we know this force relates to us in any way?  And the answer comes from logic, logic also being part of the scientific process.

The answer starts with a question we have to ask ourselves.  If this deity is all powerful, it is perfect, it doesn’t need anything, why would it create the universe and us with it at all.  And there is only one possible answer.  The answer cannot be that because he got bored and decided to get something to play around with or got whimsical. And we can keep trying different answers but only one answer fits its condition as a deity, all the other answer would contradict this condition. And the answer is because of love. 

And then there is another question that needs to be answered;  what can you love?  And the answer is you can love someone who is of your own nature.  You can say you love your dog, but you don’t really, you can like it a lot, but never really love it.  The same with God, to love us in its real meaning, not as us like our dog, we have to be of His own nature, this is we would need to have been created in “His own image and resemblance” , which is how we understand our relationship with the God of Abraham.  We can say that necessarily God created us because of love, anything else would not make sense.

Therefore to answer dhs’s question “Where does this leave us then? Are our justification of these intangibles limited only through philosophical argument? If our religious intuitions are derived in the same way as our deepest emotional and moral intuitions, does the same rational support we give in favor of these serve as a starting point to the affirmation of the validity of faith claims?

The answer is no, these are not intangibles “limited only through philosophical argument”.  Our religions intuitions need not to be ” derived in the same way as our deepest emotional and moral intuitions” .  Although they can be, but there is scientific evidence which supports very clearly our “faith claims”.  And on the contrary, the scientific evidence makes it very difficult to argue there isn’t a Creator of the universe and that the universe sprang spontaneously out of nothing with all its laws which include me writing this comment and you reading it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 December 2010 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3255
Joined  2004-12-24
IAMWHOIAM - 29 December 2010 12:19 AM

In fact, scientific evidence and generally accepted theories point to the fact that the universe had a beginning, that an outside force outside space-time caused this beginning, that this force has all the characteristics of a deity, and that this deity is the abrahamic god ...


The actual evidence, here, demonstrates that some (clearly many) can believe whatever the hell they want to, regardless of what evidence and reason actually indicate, and they have no problem coming up with pseudo-justifications that satisfy their investment in those beliefs, no matter how completely unsatisfying they are to anyone who is genuinely interested in what’s real and true and reasonably verifiable according to proper standards of honest inquiry.

 Signature 

“We say, ‘Love your brother…’ We don’t say it really, but… Well we don’t literally say it. We don’t really, literally mean it. No, we don’t believe it either, but… But that message should be clear.”—David St. Hubbins

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 3
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed