+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678
Results 113 to 118 of 118

  1. #113
    hackenslash is offline Destroyer of bad ideas. Smasher of canards.
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    202

    Re: More than one god?

    Quote Originally Posted by eugene66 View Post
    I keep reading your arguments back and forth and I can see how philosophy and QM can clear it all up.
    Philosophy, or navel-gazing, as I like to call it, can't clear anything up other than the colour of the lint in one's umbilicus. Further, QM doesn't say what you suggest it says.
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell

  2. #114
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,389

    Re: More than one god?

    Quote Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
    Philosophy, or navel-gazing, as I like to call it, can't clear anything up other than the colour of the lint in one's umbilicus. Further, QM doesn't say what you suggest it says.
    Lets see what I can find on the subject. Maybe they did some more findings since I last looked.

    Some nice quotes here.
    This is the enlightenment that mystics / spiritualists and great scientists like Albert Einstein realised. A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty… The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. … We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)



    When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence:
    Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ...
    Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, ... and can only appear as a limited region in space where the field strength / ****** density are particularly high. (Albert Einstein, 1950)


    As David Bohm writes so profoundly;
    The notion that all these fragments is separately existent is evidently an illusion, and this illusion cannot do other than lead to endless conflict and confusion. Indeed, the attempt to live according to the notion that the fragments are really separate is, in essence, what has led to the growing series of extremely urgent crises that is confronting us today. Thus, as is now well known, this way of life has brought about pollution, destruction of the balance of nature, over-population, world-wide economic and political disorder and the creation of an overall environment that is neither physically nor mentally healthy for most of the people who live in it. Individually there has developed a widespread feeling of helplessness and despair, in the face of what seems to be an overwhelming mass of disparate social forces, going beyond the control and even the comprehension of the human beings who are caught up in it. (David Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980) Source


  3. #115
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: More than one god?

    Quote Originally Posted by hackenslash View Post
    Thanks once again for utterly failing to address a single argument put forth. I'm beginning to think you aren't worth the effort.



    I do understand your simple ing ideas, it's simply that you're simply wrong, geddit? The concept of nothing has been falsified. There can be no such thing, so you are arguing for something that cannot exist.

    Talk about one water-heating receptacle casting aspersions at another for lack of albedo.

    Oh, look, yet another logical fallacy. This time, the specious and entirely fabricated argumentum ad verecundiam. Tell me, where did you earn your advanced degree, and in what topic specifically? What is oyur real name, and what college did you attend, so that I can check this for myself?

    I know you won't actually provide this information, nor should you, but this is a hint that you shouldn't make claims that are not checkable. Your erection of yourself as authority (in methodology, however that is supposed to apply to cosmology, which you clearly know nothing about) is a logical fallacy.

    When did I pretend to have complete knowldge, liar?

    I just demonstrated one, so yes, I think I do. Not only that, I can spot them instantly, while you seem unable to, or you wouldn't keep ing erecting them.

    You want to see a list of scientific studies that support Heisenberg's UNcertainty principle? Are you ing having me on?

    What a brilliant and incisive response. I wish I could come up with rebuttals of that calibre.

    Now, how about you tell all the boys and girls why.

    I don't understand time? How about those two highly rated cosmologists I cited upthread? Do they understand time? As for who lives in a fantasy world, talk about projection! I'm not the one with an imaginary friend.

    On what basis do you erect this assertion? Where is your empirical support for such a notion? This sounds like one of those fatuous appeals to common sense, and all this from somebody whose qualifications I doubt in this regard, and that's regardless of the simple fact that common sense is of little utility in elucidating reality.

    Time is linear, eh? And you accused me of not understanding what time is! Time is most certainly not linear. You might have heard of this thing, about a century old. It's called Relativity Theory. Ring any bells?


    Which bit of 'nothing is impossible' are you still having trouble with? 'Nothing' would constitute a zero field, whose value (position) and velocity (rate of change) we could predict with complete accuracy, which would violate the uncertainty principle. This principle is inviolable. I don't get how you are still struggling with this, despite it being explained to you multiple times on multiple threads.


    This doesn't even parse correctly in English. However; if you're saying what I think you're saying, then you might want to have a word with Stephen Hawking about that. Have a look at the Hawking-Hartle No-Boundary proposal.

    As for the latter part, evidence of causality? What do you mean by this? Are you saying that causality would be violated? In which case, I agree with you, but that doesn't make time linear. It simply means that we have to stick to the minus sign version of spacetime to maintain a non-Euclidean spacetime geometry, or Minkowski spacetime.

    Causality does not infer change, and while change is one way that we measure time, that doesn't actually mean that that's what time is. I really don't think you're in a position to lecture me on time, and I seriously doubt that you could even come up with a robust definition of time.

    I understand a good deal more about time than you do, and I understand what beginning means. That is not the issue. The issue is that you haven't, by any other means than blind assertion (another logical fallacy, by the way) supported the notion that the universe, or indeed anything ever, had a beginning. Whenever you're ready.
    Your time would be better spend explaining yourself rather than making derisive remarks.

    My advance degree isn't in science, but a related discipline. However, methodology pretty much transcends disciplines.

    Explain how causality is not related to change. Not theory, but examples.

    Yes, I am familiar with the theory of relativity time space curve. If you read what I posted, you'll note that I proposed time not be circular. I never said it didn't curve, as noted from gravitation pulls on light around planetary bodies. What I recall from Einsteins theory is matter is bound to material parameters and is consistent with regard to relative measures.

    What I said is time is linear with respect to direction, and therefore has a beginning. I also said, which doesn't violate principles of quantum mechanics, time is a consequences of material relationships. Unless you have a vacuum, material substances have specific properties in a constant state of change, which is a measure of time.

    Why don't you give me an example where matter isn't related to change and therefore time. If you have a better measure of time, what is it?

    What we have are two polemics, one without material substance, and one with material substance. Non material time is circular and non casual. Non causal because, without material properties (elements) to calibrate discrete phenomena, we have no measure of time. Time only exists in relationship to matter.

    On the other hands, the universe is composed of matter that's in constant motion. Motion can be calibrated with respect to material changes (subatomic levels of change). To suggest that matter isn't subject to change is to deny atomic activity associated with matter. Even frozen matter is not devoid of change.

    I prefer to stay with the empirical world. I find some scientific theories about the universe to be fantasy. Give me examples of no material change in the universe. Give me examples where change isn't related to time. Assuming you can't, I am correct in my assertions about time.

    Case Closed.

    Back to what started this exchange. If time is a function of matter, which I have demonstrated, then there must be a time line to the universe. We know based on science's radiation measures of the Big Bang that the earth to be about 13.7 billions years old. Therefore, we have a beginning of the universe. The big question is: How did it begin?

    I claim God did it. Your turn, prove the universe came from natural causes. For that, we must discuss something coming from nothing.
    Last edited by Cnance; 03-11-2011 at 02:09 PM.

  4. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6

    Re: More than one god?

    great thread.

    you are making us think yb:

  5. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    10

    Re: More than one god?

    I am a Christian, but I still find it hard to reconcile God and Jesus. I mean, who do I really pray to. =(

  6. #118
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: More than one god?

    Quote Originally Posted by yolander View Post
    I am a Christian, but I still find it hard to reconcile God and Jesus. I mean, who do I really pray to. =(
    Jesus was God, not his son. Therefore, you pray to the Lord of the Old Testament, or Jesus (God). They are the same.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •