report scams here at scam.com dont get scammed Scams and Scammers - Expose hypocrisy and spread respect ! Don't get ripped off! REGISTER
Go Back   scams > Scam Message Board > Religious Scams
Register FAQ Register To Post Member List Promote Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #109  
Old 12-26-2010, 01:29 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
Why do you not respond to my posts, Cnance? I have been nothing but charming, and I at least have some understanding of cosmology. We don't actually have any well-supported theory for the origin of the universe, but then when treating this word properly, it doesn't actually require an origin, and all that exists, including any deity, is merely a subset thereof.

You won't make headway with me, of course. Not because I'm dogmatic, but because I at least understand what I'm talking about. Perhaps that's why you haven't responded to my recent posts...
Not responding wasn't intention, I've been distracted. I am not sure about your position is about the origin of the universe. What do you mean by


Reply With Quote

  #110  
Old 12-26-2010, 01:39 PM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Well, my position, given the definition of the word 'universe' as 'that which is', and therefore leading by natural corrollary to the idea that the universe is existence, is that whatever exists is a subset of the universe, and this includes whatever some might define as a deity. IN other words, the existence of a deity requires, i.e. is contingent upon, existence, and can therefore not be a creator of the universe.

The universe is simply a brute fact.

Please note: The universe is not that which is described by the big bang theory, because that cannot describe the beginning, but only a finite time after the beginning of our local cosmic expansion. Specifically, it deals only with what came after the Planck time, which is 10^-43 seconds after the beginning of expansion.

I can explain this usage of the word, if you wish. It has a very long history, and the precedent for my usage precedes modern cosmology, but is still applicable to it.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Reply With Quote

  #111  
Old 12-26-2010, 01:41 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
Why do you not respond to my posts, Cnance? I have been nothing but charming, and I at least have some understanding of cosmology. We don't actually have any well-supported theory for the origin of the universe, but then when treating this word properly, it doesn't actually require an origin, and all that exists, including any deity, is merely a subset thereof.

You won't make headway with me, of course. Not because I'm dogmatic, but because I at least understand what I'm talking about. Perhaps that's why you haven't responded to my recent posts...
Not responding wasn't intention, I've been distracted. I am not clear about your position concerning the origin of the universe. What do you mean by "it doesn't actually require an origin"?

You would have to negate the possibility of causal relationships to ignore the beginning of the universe. Don't scientist agree about the big bang? There are many scientific theories relating the it's consequences. If I recall, the radiation fall out from the big bang starting science into believing in an origin.


Last edited by Cnance : 12-26-2010 at 01:44 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #112  
Old 12-26-2010, 02:44 PM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Cosmic Background Radiation is strong proof/support of the Big Bang. Having said that, of all the evidence for Big Bang or Expanding Contracting Universe....none of it points to supernatural causes.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #113  
Old 12-26-2010, 05:07 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
Cosmic Background Radiation is strong proof/support of the Big Bang. Having said that, of all the evidence for Big Bang or Expanding Contracting Universe....none of it points to supernatural causes.
No, but it's a beginning. It is difficult to comprehend how natural causes could precipitate the big bang.

Reply With Quote

  #114  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:32 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

So your default explanation is magic. Magic, by all we historically know is not real...it's a man-made slight of hand created to give the appearance of supernatural.

Kinda like Religion.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #115  
Old 12-27-2010, 04:55 AM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
However, lately, I've made headway debating the origin of the universe. Atheist have no scientific theory, or at least one that works.
HA!!!!...NOW THAT'S FUNNY! To make "headway" you would have to provide some type of evidence that supports your mythical sky fairy.....you haven't and don't have.

The Big Bang DOES....it has plenty...and while it may not be proved absolutely, the math and forensic evidence, CMB, support the Big Bang theory.

Try being honest for once. People might think you such an asshat.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.


Last edited by LogicallyYours : 12-27-2010 at 05:06 AM.
Reply With Quote

  #116  
Old 12-27-2010, 10:37 AM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
You would have to negate the possibility of causal relationships to ignore the beginning of the universe.
Not at all. You would simply have to recognise that science as yet has nothing to say about the beginning of the universe.

Quote:
Don't scientist agree about the big bang? There are many scientific theories relating the it's consequences. If I recall, the radiation fall out from the big bang starting science into believing in an origin.
Nope. In reality, the big bang theory only deals with what happens after the Planck time, which is a finite time after the beginning of expansion. It has nothing to say about any prior state to the universe, and most cosmologists don't actually credit the idea of the big bang actually being the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of our local cosmic expansion. Again, here's Alan Guth, father of inflationary theory:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Guth
So far, it's been made to sound, I think for the purposes of simplifying things, that until the cyclic model, all scientists had believed that the big bang was the origin of time itself. That idea is certainly part of the classic theory of the big bang, but it's an idea which I think most cosmologists have not taken seriously in quite a while. That is, the idea that there's something that happened before what we call the big bang has been around for quite a number of years... In what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes.
He goes on to say:

Quote:
What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we’re talking about. … The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. … The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. … It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would sprout out in other places in this multiverse.
Now, if time didn't begin at the big bang, and time is a feature of the universe, then the universe did not begin at the big bang. Further, the universe is literally 'all that exists', and that includes whatever preceded the big bang. Interestingly, under this rigorous definition, it also includes your god, if he exists, which puts a big hole in the idea of god as creator, because it means he is contingent upon existence, i.e. the universe.

Bear in mind the history of the word 'universe'. Initially, it was thought only to be our Milky Way, because it was all we were aware of. Then, in the 1930s, the conception of what constituted the universe expanded, because Hubble showed that what were thought to be merely stars in our own galaxy (indeed the word 'galaxy' had little meaning in this context until then) were actually galaxies in their own right, and that they were, on average, flying away from us. So, if there was a prior state that preceded the big bang, we are not justified in asserting that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, only our local cosmic expansion.

Most importantly, though, science doesn't negate causality in dealing with the big bang, because it's actually working on the causal mechanism behind the instantiation of the cosmos. If, as I suspect, a natural mechanism can be found for cosmic instantiation, then the idea of god is entirely superfluous, as it has been in every single instance so far in which a process has been attricuted to him but has fallen under the rubric of observational science, in which natural mechanisms were found to be sufficient explanation.

Asserting a creator at this point is merely god-of-the-gaps, and those gaps are shrinking almost daily.

It should also be noted that science is far from being in agreement concerning the nature of the big bang, and at least one model has no singularity. Indeed, most of the people who discuss this don't even really understand precisely what a singularity is in this context. It is thought to be an area of infinite density and infinite curvature, which translates as a point in spacetime. However, this stems from misunderstandings of two areas of science. The first stems from Hawking and Penrose, who showed that General Relativity implied such an event at the big bang, but both men have since admitted that they didn't take quantum effects into account in this appraisal, and that quantum effects must be taken into account when dealing with this sort of singularity. The second, of course, arises from Hawking's work in black holes, which again require a quantum treatment of gravity for their explanation. Until we actually have a quantum theory of gravity, no robust concensus can be reached.

What a singularity is, in real terms, is simply an event at which our theories break down. The reason for this is that we are talking about a quantum event (a point particle, in essence) with a relativistic mass. All attempts to merge the equations of Quantum Mechanics with those of General Relativity have yielded solutions equal to infinity, which means that they aren't working. This is what is meant by a singularity in this context. Since Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity cannot currently be unified into a quantum theory of gravity, science currently has no commentary on the BB singularity, if it even exists.

It may well be that M-Theory, the over-arching unification of the various branches of string theory, can provide the answer, but that is not yet known.

All arguments for treating the big bang as the beginning, and especially those that infer god at that beginning, fail before they even get off the ground.

The classic example is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is defeated even before you get past the first premise.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Reply With Quote

  #117  
Old 12-27-2010, 06:20 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
Not at all. You would simply have to recognise that science as yet has nothing to say about the beginning of the universe.



Nope. In reality, the big bang theory only deals with what happens after the Planck time, which is a finite time after the beginning of expansion. It has nothing to say about any prior state to the universe, and most cosmologists don't actually credit the idea of the big bang actually being the beginning of the universe, only the beginning of our local cosmic expansion. Again, here's Alan Guth, father of inflationary theory:



He goes on to say:



Now, if time didn't begin at the big bang, and time is a feature of the universe, then the universe did not begin at the big bang. Further, the universe is literally 'all that exists', and that includes whatever preceded the big bang. Interestingly, under this rigorous definition, it also includes your god, if he exists, which puts a big hole in the idea of god as creator, because it means he is contingent upon existence, i.e. the universe.

Bear in mind the history of the word 'universe'. Initially, it was thought only to be our Milky Way, because it was all we were aware of. Then, in the 1930s, the conception of what constituted the universe expanded, because Hubble showed that what were thought to be merely stars in our own galaxy (indeed the word 'galaxy' had little meaning in this context until then) were actually galaxies in their own right, and that they were, on average, flying away from us. So, if there was a prior state that preceded the big bang, we are not justified in asserting that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, only our local cosmic expansion.

Most importantly, though, science doesn't negate causality in dealing with the big bang, because it's actually working on the causal mechanism behind the instantiation of the cosmos. If, as I suspect, a natural mechanism can be found for cosmic instantiation, then the idea of god is entirely superfluous, as it has been in every single instance so far in which a process has been attricuted to him but has fallen under the rubric of observational science, in which natural mechanisms were found to be sufficient explanation.

Asserting a creator at this point is merely god-of-the-gaps, and those gaps are shrinking almost daily.

It should also be noted that science is far from being in agreement concerning the nature of the big bang, and at least one model has no singularity. Indeed, most of the people who discuss this don't even really understand precisely what a singularity is in this context. It is thought to be an area of infinite density and infinite curvature, which translates as a point in spacetime. However, this stems from misunderstandings of two areas of science. The first stems from Hawking and Penrose, who showed that General Relativity implied such an event at the big bang, but both men have since admitted that they didn't take quantum effects into account in this appraisal, and that quantum effects must be taken into account when dealing with this sort of singularity. The second, of course, arises from Hawking's work in black holes, which again require a quantum treatment of gravity for their explanation. Until we actually have a quantum theory of gravity, no robust concensus can be reached.

What a singularity is, in real terms, is simply an event at which our theories break down. The reason for this is that we are talking about a quantum event (a point particle, in essence) with a relativistic mass. All attempts to merge the equations of Quantum Mechanics with those of General Relativity have yielded solutions equal to infinity, which means that they aren't working. This is what is meant by a singularity in this context. Since Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity cannot currently be unified into a quantum theory of gravity, science currently has no commentary on the BB singularity, if it even exists.

It may well be that M-Theory, the over-arching unification of the various branches of string theory, can provide the answer, but that is not yet known.

All arguments for treating the big bang as the beginning, and especially those that infer god at that beginning, fail before they even get off the ground.

The classic example is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is defeated even before you get past the first premise.
I respect the science, but I don't respect it's application.

I think you've been to Vegas. Place you beats down on all possible theories and see what comes up.

I am not a scientist, so I cannot respond professionally to your argument. However, there are a few hurdles regarding time and physical laws that need to be addressed. My understanding is that there is consensus in the scientific community that the universe, based on radiation fall out studies, is about 13.5 billion years old. You are saying that it is just part of an enormous universe, or universes (the best way to hedge your bet) and that because of other contingencies based on Quantum physics for the Planck Constant we can attribute multiple sequences of events back to beginning possibilities. I am sure I got it wrong, just trying follow the reasoning. Sounds like you have done what Hawking did with his multiple universe thesis. If you can't explain it by a reasonable thesis, throw in multiple universes, that should cover all bases.

My simple proposition is as follows: Assuming matter is a measure of time, there must be a time line to the universe. Therefore, the universe is not a perpetual machine going on without beginning and without end. If you can provide a theory explaining how matter rejuvenates itself and therefore becomes a "perpetual machine" without beginning or end, then you have discovered the secret of eternal life, and therefore you have found a substitute for the theological definition of God. The key to this discussion is ETERNITY. I assume God is eternal, you seemed to be saying the universe is eternal. I can't prove God because He is in another dimension of reality. However, because of the limitations of matter, you can't prove that the universe is eternal. Why don't you admit to the limitations of scientific theory for explaining eternity, unless you don''t think it's important. If you disregard the idea of eternity, you must explain, or at least acknowledge that science can only explain the possible, not the impossible.

Reply With Quote

  #118  
Old 12-28-2010, 12:02 AM
Kendrick Kendrick is offline
Newbie Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 13
Re: God or Nature

This has been an issue for so many years, I mean, If god really exist or if he really made the universe. Well, If you're a believer of course you would say yes. But if not probably you're on the No side.

But for me, as long as there's no exact ans strong scientific proof about this stuff, I will still believe that God really made our universe.

Reply With Quote

  #119  
Old 12-28-2010, 01:26 AM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
I am not a scientist, so I cannot respond professionally to your argument. However, there are a few hurdles regarding time and physical laws that need to be addressed. My understanding is that there is consensus in the scientific community that the universe, based on radiation fall out studies, is about 13.5 billion years old. You are saying that it is just part of an enormous universe, or universes (the best way to hedge your bet) and that because of other contingencies based on Quantum physics for the Planck Constant we can attribute multiple sequences of events back to beginning possibilities. I am sure I got it wrong, just trying follow the reasoning. Sounds like you have done what Hawking did with his multiple universe thesis. If you can't explain it by a reasonable thesis, throw in multiple universes, that should cover all bases.
ACtually, quite the opposite. You seem not to have actually read what I posted. There is and can be only one universe, because it's what the word means, namely everything that exists. I'm not throwing in multiple universes, I'm saying that there can't be other universes.

What you are doing here is mistaking the vernacular usage of the word, often employed by cosmologists, with the rigorous usage. Bear in mind that cosmologists are employing this word in this manner because they think that people know what they're talking about, and they're not used to havng their words equivocated.

Quote:
My simple proposition is as follows: Assuming matter is a measure of time, there must be a time line to the universe.
That's a faulty assumption. The problem is that there is a) no good reason to make that assumption, not least because, as demonstrated above with the quote from Guth, cosmologists don't think that time began at the big bang, and before the big bang there was NO MATTER. Thus, your assumption that matter is a measure of time is fundamentally and fatally flawed.

Quote:
Therefore, the universe is not a perpetual machine going on without beginning and without end. If you can provide a theory explaining how matter rejuvenates itself and therefore becomes a "perpetual machine" without beginning or end, then you have discovered the secret of eternal life, and therefore you have found a substitute for the theological definition of God.
What has life got to do with this? Why do you suddenly inject that into the discussion, as if it were there all along?

Second, you are focusing too keenly on matter. You have to understand that matter is not the be-all and end-all. There is also ******, which is pretty much matter in another form. Matter and ****** are interchangeable via E=mc^2. In the Turok/Stenhardt model, ****** is input into our local cosmic expansion via the collision of poly-dimensional 'branes' which, through their kinetic ******, provide all the input necessary for the matter in the cosmos.

Quote:
The key to this discussion is ETERNITY. I assume God is eternal, you seemed to be saying the universe is eternal. I can't prove God because He is in another dimension of reality.
Another dimension of reality? Really? Do you even understand what a dimension is? I doubt it, because you are seriously misusing the concept here.

All your justifications ofr your deity rest on this concept of eternity, but they fall by the same means and through the application of Occam's Razor. I say the universe is simply a brute fact, while you say that your magic man is a brute fact. The difference between the two hypotheses is simply that we know the universe exists, while your deity is simply a rectally extracted blind assertion. Thus, he constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities, and fails the test of parsimony.

Quote:
However, because of the limitations of matter, you can't prove that the universe is eternal.
I don't need to 'prove' any such thing (and I see you still haven't learned that the word 'prove' is entirely inappropriate and inapplicable here, despite having been schooled on it several times), because I can at least point to the universe and say 'there it is'. Can you do the same for your entirely fabricated deity? Of course you can't, you can only point to your wish that it were so.

Quote:
Why don't you admit to the limitations of scientific theory for explaining eternity, unless you don''t think it's important.
Can you point out this limitation? It always amuses me greatly when somebody who admits to a general ignorance of science tries to tell us that it has limitations. Please, oh, wise one, tell us what those limitations are, and demonstrate that there are indeed realms in which science cannot comment. If you can do this without committing the fallacy of the stolen concept, I'll show my arse in the window of Harrod's on New Year's Day.

Quote:
If you disregard the idea of eternity, you must explain, or at least acknowledge that science can only explain the possible, not the impossible.
I don't have to disregard the idea of eternity, or infinity. Oh, and science does explain the impossible. Indeed, that's entirely how science works. Science doesn't tell us what is, only what isn't. In other words, it works by ruling out that which is not in accord with reality, by deeming it impossible. Only through science can this be ascertained. Meanwhile, you speak of the limitations of science, all the while supporting an epistemological construct that has no epistemology whatsoever.

In short, you're whining about what science can't tell us, while supporting a load of rectally exracted guff thatCAN TELL US NOTHING WHATSOEVER, apart from, of course, telling us just how bloody gullible people can be.

You have nothing, and your entire mythology is a will-o-the-wisp.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

Reply With Quote

  #120  
Old 12-28-2010, 10:44 AM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

mater wormateria a materia lworlda
Quote:
Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
ACtually, quite the opposite. You seem not to have actually read what I posted. There is and can be only one universe, because it's what the word means, namely everything that exists. I'm not throwing in multiple universes, I'm saying that there can't be other universes.

What you are doing here is mistaking the vernacular usage of the word, often employed by cosmologists, with the rigorous usage. Bear in mind that cosmologists are employing this word in this manner because they think that people know what they're talking about, and they're not used to havng their words equivocated.



That's a faulty assumption. The problem is that there is a) no good reason to make that assumption, not least because, as demonstrated above with the quote from Guth, cosmologists don't think that time began at the big bang, and before the big bang there was NO MATTER. Thus, your assumption that matter is a measure of time is fundamentally and fatally flawed.



What has life got to do with this? Why do you suddenly inject that into the discussion, as if it were there all along?

Second, you are focusing too keenly on matter. You have to understand that matter is not the be-all and end-all. There is also ******, which is pretty much matter in another form. Matter and ****** are interchangeable via E=mc^2. In the Turok/Stenhardt model, ****** is input into our local cosmic expansion via the collision of poly-dimensional 'branes' which, through their kinetic ******, provide all the input necessary for the matter in the cosmos.



Another dimension of reality? Really? Do you even understand what a dimension is? I doubt it, because you are seriously misusing the concept here.

All your justifications ofr your deity rest on this concept of eternity, but they fall by the same means and through the application of Occam's Razor. I say the universe is simply a brute fact, while you say that your magic man is a brute fact. The difference between the two hypotheses is simply that we know the universe exists, while your deity is simply a rectally extracted blind assertion. Thus, he constitutes an unnecessary multiplication of entities, and fails the test of parsimony.



I don't need to 'prove' any such thing (and I see you still haven't learned that the word 'prove' is entirely inappropriate and inapplicable here, despite having been schooled on it several times), because I can at least point to the universe and say 'there it is'. Can you do the same for your entirely fabricated deity? Of course you can't, you can only point to your wish that it were so.



Can you point out this limitation? It always amuses me greatly when somebody who admits to a general ignorance of science tries to tell us that it has limitations. Please, oh, wise one, tell us what those limitations are, and demonstrate that there are indeed realms in which science cannot comment. If you can do this without committing the fallacy of the stolen concept, I'll show my arse in the window of Harrod's on New Year's Day.



I don't have to disregard the idea of eternity, or infinity. Oh, and science does explain the impossible. Indeed, that's entirely how science works. Science doesn't tell us what is, only what isn't. In other words, it works by ruling out that which is not in accord with reality, by deeming it impossible. Only through science can this be ascertained. Meanwhile, you speak of the limitations of science, all the while supporting an epistemological construct that has no epistemology whatsoever.

In short, you're whining about what science can't tell us, while supporting a load of rectally exracted guff thatCAN TELL US NOTHING WHATSOEVER, apart from, of course, telling us just how bloody gullible people can be.

You have nothing, and your entire mythology is a will-o-the-wisp.
Much of our disagreement, which cannot be resolved, is based on the fact that I am critical about your assumptions because they are limited to a material universe. I think your belittling of my discussion of eternity, while appropriate to the soundness of the science you propose, ignores the issue of time in relationship to creation and the universe. By ignore the importance of time in relationship to matter you can stay within the scientific box. That isn't meant to belittle that box, just to position it in the context of material reality. I believe you must get outside that box to conceptualize another reality, the one that created our material universe.

Time is the critical issue for this discussion. You already admitted there is a time line to the universe. I do not think I am incorrect to correlate time with matter. Isn't it true that matter decays and changes form? Even though there are patterns (type, frequency and duration) for subatomic particles, those patterns reoccur in another context, never to be repeated in the exact same form? Thus, we have a measure of time.

If matter is a measure of time, there is a time line for the universe. For time and matter to exist, we must have a beginning. The question is how can you explain a beginning. For this you cannot disregard a creator. The challenge for science it is to explain how matter came into existence without matter. Sounds simple, and yet in application it goes to the core of the matter (ha, ha, ha) In the beginning, how did matter create itself?

As for eternity, it is important because it conceptualizes time as circular, and therefore outside of the time/matter relationship. If eternity is the absence of time, God and matter are incomparable. Matter cannot create God, but God can, and did create matter. For God, time can go forward or backward. For the universe, matter can only go forward, not backwards. It is reasonable to assume that matter was created from the author of eternity (circularity of time). The universe is limited to the constraints of one time dimension, only forward, never backward or circular.


Last edited by Cnance : 12-28-2010 at 12:06 PM.
Reply With Quote

  #121  
Old 12-28-2010, 12:58 PM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Science does not rule out a deity, it's just there is no proof of a deity or that a deity had a hand in anything. Furthermore, as a deity is not falsifiable and cannot be tested, science does not concern itself with it.

Your assumption that "God did it" until proved otherwise is, intellectually dishonest, as has been pointed out a number of times. It IS THE "GOD OF THE GAPS" argument personified...especially when there isn't event the first bit of evidence for the "God" argument.

Second, as has been pointed out TOO MANY times...the logical fallacy that if A does not equal C, then by default, B equals C. You off-hand rule out any other option with out consideration. Logical Fallacy.

You've lost even before you left the gate.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #122  
Old 12-28-2010, 02:40 PM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
Science does not rule out a deity, it's just there is no proof of a deity or that a deity had a hand in anything. Furthermore, as a deity is not falsifiable and cannot be tested, science does not concern itself with it.

Your assumption that "God did it" until proved otherwise is, intellectually dishonest, as has been pointed out a number of times. It IS THE "GOD OF THE GAPS" argument personified...especially when there isn't event the first bit of evidence for the "God" argument.

Second, as has been pointed out TOO MANY times...the logical fallacy that if A does not equal C, then by default, B equals C. You off-hand rule out any other option with out consideration. Logical Fallacy.

You've lost even before you left the gate.
Because of your bias you don't really read my postings. I have presented a logical argument about time and matter. Why don't you address it. How is it possible for matter to create itself? If there is a time line for matter, then it has to have a beginning.

I won't stop my arguments just because you don't approve. Give me a logical argument.



Reply With Quote

  #123  
Old 12-28-2010, 02:46 PM
LogicallyYours's Avatar
LogicallyYours LogicallyYours is offline
Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,378
Re: God or Nature

Your "argument" assigns cause do to a deity without proving it necessary or without proof. Your argument, logically, holds no water. I could substitute "Unicorn" for God and make the same claim.

You have no proof OR LOGIC to stand on.
__________________
"Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

Reply With Quote

  #124  
Old 12-29-2010, 09:26 AM
Cnance's Avatar
Cnance Cnance is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,854
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicallyYours View Post
Your "argument" assigns cause do to a deity without proving it necessary or without proof. Your argument, logically, holds no water. I could substitute "Unicorn" for God and make the same claim.

You have no proof OR LOGIC to stand on.
Evidently, you are having a hard time reading my posting. It is a logical argument that atheist refuse to address. If you ever had to admit you have no explanation for the origin of the universe or that you are completely baffled by how matter can create itself, you would be in trouble. You are being intellectually dishonest for not addressing this simple argument. With your brilliant grasp of science, I am sure you can dispose of my argument. It should be simple, after all we are so stupid and you are so smart.

Time is the critical issue for this discussion. You already admitted there is a time line to the universe. I do not think I am incorrect to correlate time with matter. Isn't it true that matter decays and changes form? Even though there are patterns (type, frequency and duration) for subatomic particles, those patterns reoccur in another context, never to be repeated in the exact same form? Thus, we have a measure of time.

If matter is a measure of time, there is a time line for the universe. For time and matter to exist, we must have a beginning. The question is how can you explain a beginning. For this you cannot disregard a creator. The challenge for science it is to explain how matter came into existence without matter. Sounds simple, and yet in application it goes to the core of the matter (ha, ha, ha) In the beginning, how did matter create itself?

Reply With Quote

  #125  
Old 12-29-2010, 10:12 AM
thistle thistle is offline
Most Valued Gold Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,600
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
If matter is a measure of time, there is a time line for the universe. For time and matter to exist, we must have a beginning. The question is how can you explain a beginning. For this you cannot disregard a creator. The challenge for science it is to explain how matter came into existence without matter. Sounds simple, and yet in application it goes to the core of the matter (ha, ha, ha) In the beginning, how did matter create itself?
There is one problem though - you assert (with no evidence) that :
  1. matter is a measure of time. Evidence?
  2. this means a "beginning". Evidence?
  3. This "beginning" means god. Evidence?
These are assertions without evidence. There are theories about the formation/start of the universe, but we dont know. Its not a problem for atheists, any more than its a problem for theists - neither know, and the evidence would suggest the supernatural had no part to play.

The equivalent evidence for gods? The faith of insecure & fearful men.

Reply With Quote

  #126  
Old 12-29-2010, 10:52 AM
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 202
Re: God or Nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
Much of our disagreement, which cannot be resolved, is based on the fact that I am critical about your assumptions because they are limited to a material universe.
No, much of our disagreement is that you simply don't have the first idea of what you're talking about.

Firstly, where we have hard evidence from reality, assumptions are superfluous, and I am making none. You, on the other hand, aren't just making assumptions, you're extracting them wholesale from an orifice more usually associated with a more solid form of waste.

Secondly, until such time as it can be demonstrated that there is any other universe than the material, I am entirely justified in asserting that you are simply making shit up to suit your discoursive needs, which isn't only stupid, it's dishonest.

Quote:
I think your belittling of my discussion of eternity, while appropriate to the soundness of the science you propose, ignores the issue of time in relationship to creation and the universe.
On the contrary, it's putting time on its proper, rigorous footing, while you are simply wibbling on on a topic you know nothing about. Do you even know what time is? Would you like a lesson in Special and General Relativity so that you at least have some idea of what you're arguing against?

Quote:
By ignore the importance of time in relationship to matter you can stay within the scientific box. That isn't meant to belittle that box, just to position it in the context of material reality. I believe you must get outside that box to conceptualize another reality, the one that created our material universe.
Utter guff. There is only reality. There isn't 'this reality' and 'that reality. This is more discoursive wibble designed to make it look like you have the first idea of what you're talking about. Only problem is, you don't, and it is therefore not working.

Matter is important to time, but not in the sense that you're talking about. Time slows in the presence of mass due to the relativistic warping of spacetime, but the simple fact that you treat time as a separate entity is sufficient evidence that you don't actually know anything whatsoever about time.

Quote:
Time is the critical issue for this discussion.
I agree completely, so you should take the time to learn something about it before erecting your ignorant wibble about it.

Quote:
You already admitted there is a time line to the universe.
Did I indeed? Would you like to point out where I did that?

It certainly isn't true that there is a 'timeline' to the universe. Indeed, this is precisely what Einstein taught us. Time travels at different rates for different observers, so there can be no universal timeline. Further, you're still treating time as separate from space, which is another fatal flaw in your assertions.

Quote:
I do not think I am incorrect to correlate time with matter.
What you think is irrelevant, not least because, as I have already told you, you are incorrect, and for reasons already stated. If the time dimension existed before the big bang, when there was no matter, them your correlation of time and matter is fundamentally flawed. You can continue to assert your guff if you like, but it will simply constitute dishonesty, since you have already been schooled on this point.

Quote:
Isn't it true that matter decays and changes form?
You'll have to be more specific about what you mean here. There are certainly forms of matter that decay, but not all forms of matter decay, although as the universe approaches eventual heat death, it is thought that all matter will be torn apart by the vacuum and eventually become a sea of photons. I don't think that's what you're talking about, though, so please clarify.


Quote:
Even though there are patterns (type, frequency and duration) for subatomic particles, those patterns reoccur in another context, never to be repeated in the exact same form? Thus, we have a measure of time.
Meaningless word salad. Certainly, we have a measure of time in the progress of events, but that's not the same as saying that's what time is. I use a tape measure to measure fish, but that doesn't mean my tape measure is a fish.

Quote:
If matter is a measure of time,
It isn't.

Quote:
there is a time line for the universe.
There isn't.

Quote:
For time and matter to exist, we must have a beginning.
Why? Can you actually demonstrate anything ever that had a beginning? We certainly observe changes in state for ******, but beginnings? NO. Those would actually be ruled out by the first law of thermodynamics.

Quote:
The question is how can you explain a beginning.
I don't have to explain a beginning, not least because it's doubtful that there ever was one. See above.

Quote:
For this you cannot disregard a creator.
There are two reasons I can disregard a creator. The first is that there is no evidence for a beginning. The second is that a creator fails Occam's Razor. I have stated this several times now, so you should be beginning to grasp it by now. There is no reason as yet to regard a creator, let alone to fail to disregard it.

Quote:
The challenge for science it is to explain how matter came into existence without matter.
Well, we have several ideas about that. The simple fact is that you still don't understand that matter is just ******, and vice versa. Are you ready to learn about matter/****** equivalence yet? All we need is ****** input, and the rest is taken care of by E=mc^2, with no magic men required. Further, your magic man fails to provide any sort of explanation, and raises more questions than it answers, none of which are actually testable or falsifiable, and are therefore moot.

Quote:
Sounds simple, and yet in application it goes to the core of the matter (ha, ha, ha) In the beginning, how did matter create itself?
Very droll. Matter didn't create itself. Matter arises from ****** via big bang nucleosynthesis and then stellar nucleosynthesis. DO I really need to lead you through elementary and high school physics? Frankly, if I hadn't known this stuff at the age of 14, I would have left the classroom nursing a sore pair of buttocks in one hand and an F grade in the other.

Quote:
As for eternity, it is important because it conceptualizes time as circular,
Why? You can assert this all you like, but can you actually demonstrate it? I doubt it, because you would have to know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't.

Quote:
and therefore outside of the time/matter relationship.
Keep asserting this ignorant nonsense as if it's true. It won't make it any more true, but it gives us something to laugh at. Please demonstrate that 'outside of time' is a viable concept, preferably with peer-reviewed scientific sources in support.

Quote:
If eternity is the absence of time,
What a beautiful contradiction. Eternity is a temporal reference, so cannot be the absence of time.

Quote:
God and matter are incomparable.
Damn straight, because one of them can be demonstrated to exist, while the other is a mere fantasy.

Quote:
Matter cannot create God, but God can, and did create matter. For God, time can go forward or backward.
Rectally extracted blind assertions do not constitute evidence. More importantly, this is the fallacy of begging the question.

Quote:
For the universe, matter can only go forward, not backwards.
Nobel laureate Richard Feyman would like a word with you about that, because he disagrees with you, and he knows a good deal more about matter and time than you do, Indeed, Feynman's Quantum Field Theory is the most accurate and successful theory in the history of science. You might want to look at the laws of physics, all of which are inherently time-reversible and draw no distinction between the forward and backward directions in time. Moreover, Feynman tells us that a positron is simply an electron travelling backwards in time!

Quote:
It is reasonable to assume that matter was created from the author of eternity (circularity of time).
No, because it's never reasonable to assume anything, except during the course of formulating hypotheses to be tested. The distinction here is that you have no intention, or even want, of testing the arguments you extract from your rectum, because you aren't open to the possibility of being wrong, as demonstrated by your reassertion of made-up guff despite having been schooled on where it is simply not in accord with reality.

Secondly, you 'circularity of time' is just another assertion on your part, with absolutely no support whatsoever.

Quote:
The universe is limited to the constraints of one time dimension, only forward, never backward or circular.
Already showed you why that's wrong.

Now, do you actually have any support for your various blind assertions, or is just the usual apologetic horseshit?
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell


Reply With Quote

Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State of Nature kazza Political Chat 45 08-09-2012 06:39 PM
Suppressing Nature Yeah Well Fine Then Political Chat 1 03-09-2010 04:09 PM
The Nature Of Cowardice pwrone Political Chat 22 05-26-2009 10:50 AM
Powers in Nature Solve et Coagula Political Chat 0 08-20-2007 05:28 PM
war against human nature Whispering wind Government Scams 9 09-15-2006 06:57 PM

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump




This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. Scam.com does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk. Neither Scam.com nor its affiliates, nor any of their respective agents, employees, information providers or content providers, shall be liable to any User or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error, omission, interruption, deletion, defect, alteration of or use of any content herein, or for its timeliness or completeness, nor shall they be liable for any failure of performance, computer virus or communication line failure, regardless of cause, or for any damages resulting therefrom. Just because a business, person, or entity is listed on scam.com does not necessarily constitute they are scammers. This is a free open forum where people can debate the merits from the consumer's or business owner's perspective. Registration and participation is always FREE.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:32 PM.




Scam.com Is Proudly Hosted By Rackco and Protected By CloudFlare


Scams Message Board - Copyright 2004-2013 Scam.com , All Rights Reserved.