Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by junobet, Jul 21, 2013.
Why not stand by your own words?
I too would like to see that evidence*. Actually the reverse is true.
* observational evidence for the universe beginning ex nihilo ?
Not sure what you're asking... it's pretty straightforward. Something coming from nothing.
The creation of our Universe via the Big Bang is not something coming from nothing.
The Big Bang is a name for what is known as a White Hole.
Where ever there is a White Hole at the other end is a Black Hole.
White holes are hypothetical.
The definition of a White Hole is the opening of a point of Singularity in Space/Time that ejects Quantum Particle/Wave Forms.
We know this happened in our Universes creation point.
I don’t know if it is intentional but GFP is playing into the theists hand. Why that is a true statement will take a bit of an explanation. Nothing comes from nothing according to science. Nothing means NOTHING no space no energy no vacuum, nothing. Its a simple but difficult concept to visualize. Anyway another problem when discussing how the universe began is that most of our answers come from theoretical musings. Our physics only allow us to follow the clock back to tiny fractions of a second after the big bang or time zero (t-0).
Even if physics and science can not tell us by experiment we know by logic the universe could not come from nothing. Science does circuitously support that conclusion because all known events processes and things have a cause for their existence. That means the universe came from something or we can say that some 'thing' caused the universe to begin to exist. This 'thing', or the 'cause' that caused the universe to begin to exist must have several characteristics according to science. Since space, and all energy or its 'frozen' twin i.e. atom based ‘matter’ and the quantum processes that go with it meaning all atomic processes, and time was created in the big bang the ’thing’, otherwise known as the ‘cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist could not have those attributes listed above.
So we must ask ourselves what 'thing', or what ‘cause’ that caused the universe to begin to exist could be atemporal i.e. not effected by time? Another word for atemporal thing would be an eternal 'thing'. I say the cause or thing that caused the universe to begin is eternal because time did not exist before the big bang. So we have a thing or a cause that is eternal. Ok next; what 'thing' or 'cause' is not made out of energy or matter (atoms or their constituent parts like electrons quarks protons etc etc), or what ’thing’ or ‘cause’ has no quantum processes, fields etc. ? Tell me what has the above attributes? Something that can cause a life giving universe to begin to exist that is eternal and is made of nothing physical such as atom based matter or has no energy fields of any type?
The ONLY thing that describes this thing since it MUST exist is God, or some thing that has the same attributes as God. The observational evidence and other evidences including empirical etc the big bang model of ’creation’ which supports the existence of God. This is a fairly recent revelation and it’s the reason that some secular scientists including Hawking are running from the STANDARD big bang (hot) model of the universe. Not only must the cause that caused the big bang to begin to exist or if you wish the cause that caused the big bang singularity (BBS)* to begin to exist must possess the above qualities that even science agrees were formed in the big bang after time zero (t-0) Gods attributes it fit’s the modern form of the KCA** as well.
* (BBS as not to confuse the Bang singularity with a stellar mass BB)
** First premise of the KCA ;
(1) Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
You are using Faulty Logic.
Although it is not currently possible to either prove or disprove the existence of a GOD....no evidence exists in any possible fashion to conclude a GOD must exist.
It is not possible to define our Universal Reality as either just the only one existing nor can it be determined that it must have a beginning or an end as it is quite possible such a thing is cyclical.
Your definition of evidence must differ from mine! There is indeed evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. By evidence I mean the same type of evidence that can get you a death sentence by PROVING your guilt. So that type of logic can overcome hundreds of challenges to its validity and fitness to be used in capital cases where its good enough to convict and execute a human being its good enough to show that the existence of God is probable. So next you attack my logic. The logic(s) I use is rock solid. Your logic is in fact faulty. One can by deductive logic show the most likely outcome etc. The KCA does not claim to show that God exists with 100% certainty but rather that its the most likely (logical) explanation.
If by 'Universal Reality' you mean universe again the big bang model which is currently far and away the most accepted theory for how the universe began shows the universe did begin. Other science shows us that the universe has not enough mass to cause the universe to eventually contract and start another big bang cycle. That means an eternally rebounding universe or cyclical universe is not possible due to not enough mass. In fact the observational evidence from satellites and spacecraft built for that purpose shows that our universe doesn’t even have a fraction of the mass needed to stop the expansion. So (according to the evidence) this universe will continue to expand and one day it will 'die'. The BB model also indicates our universe began at a point in time and other experiments etc tells us its the only universe (no meta universes etc). The truth is that cosmology, astronomy, and general science did support the theists in the mid 70’s to current time which horrified secular scientists like hawking. Those secular scientiests are the originators of alternate theories to big bang model…but that is another story and thread.
There does not exist any evidence or proof or math that would be considered a viable construct of logic to support that a GOD is the most likely reason for reality and all within it to exist.
For you to state this is beyond ridiculous and I challenge you to provide an explanation.
Also....since we perceive time as linear due to our perception of Space/Time reality being specific to a minimum 10 Dimensional state....most people cannot fathom the reality of 1 Dimensionality's Concurrence of existence.
I have already told you what evidence is available. One can not say well I want you to prove ‘this or that exists’ but you can’t use ‘this or that’ evidence. There are all types of evidence, when lending evidence to an atemporal being that is non-corporal and has no physical attributes its rather dim to ask for physical evidence! Just as you can not provide the type of evidence you ask for say the processes inside a black hole there are no evidences of that type that can support an entity. So as with a black hole process or questions about the existence of a entity that has no physical processes and is atemproal we can only use logic, and other tools of science and metaphysics to lend evidence for such an entity’s existence. However, if you insist in remaining in denial I cant help you. I have already explained how the universe required a 'cause' for it to begin to exist, and that the cause has the attributes of God which you either cant understand or don’t want to understand. When you muster enough courage or moxy to either agree with or rebut my comments we can proceed.
Everything I said made complete sense, so instead of making widly subjective claims about my entire post please pick out a point or claim I make and ask me to clarify or explain it in more simple terms etc. I would be happy to do just that. I already provided an explanation to which you could not mount a defense or rebuttal. Since you offered no defense or rebuttal to my claims its obvious that you can not offer a rebuttal or defense and are attempting a bait and switch tactic and a crude attempt at that.
What kind of dressing do you want with that Word salad Prattle? Ignorant Vignette? Anyway we don’t perceive time as linear because of some ten dimensional state what ever silliness that is. We perceive time as linear because of the arrow of time which has nothing to do with string theory, the only ten dimensional thing I know of and it is superseded by 11 dimensional M theory (Membrane theory). Your ignorance of the subject has to be obvious to anyone that has a rudimentary knowledge of the subjects covered.
So let Dr (to be) Reva bring you back to earth. In big bang cosmology and currently accepted physics we still reference and explain our universe from a three dimensional universe. Only when space and time are merged into a single continuum can we say the universe is four dimensional.
So now that we have the basics it is understood that our reality consists of space as existing in three dimensions. Three dimensions are simply understood by combining three items picked from the following; ‘length, width, height, depth, and breadth‘. Only when adding space and time do we gain a fourth dimension that different from the first three spatial dimensions.
You must change your sc to ‘most people’ eh? You don’t get it even when I explained everything you asked for in my replies and to which you rebutted nothing specific. Instead you just posted rubbish that was not of this world, or sure seemed like BS. Wait, I have been known to make a rare mistake.
Ok, I will give you an out. maybe I am lost and your last sentence was so far advanced that I can’t even understand it. So in your own words explain in simple terms exactly what that last quote means and why you posted it.
With all due respect and I mean that I beg to differ, as in; No, we all do not know that a theorticat white hole 'happened' in our Universes creation point'. BTW 'point' is a misnomer because there was no 'point' since there was no space to place it in. White holes are an entirely speculative animal unless you have breaking news from someplace other than national enquirer. Also that first sentence was another Above Alpha fabrication. The definition of a white hole is a hypothetical (not theoretical) tremendously dense object in space that radiates 'boocoo' amount of energy and matter, if a black hole is a drain a white hole is the field line that drains all the crap into the septic tank (analogous to space) what a stinkin’ [sic] analogy, lol ~
Whether or not anything cancome from nothing, you are exposing a grave misunderstanding of science, and reality itself.
What we can know by "logic" or common sense or intuition or any of those other poor tools can over and over be shown to be utterly mistaken.
I have corrected you time and again here, pointing to the Copenhagen Interpretation as a "proof" of an Observer pre-existing the Big Bang, representing the required observer of the very first Waves of information that had to be collapsed in order for the Universe to form.
Why do you keep speaking with authority to the contrary???
OK, suppose what you type is true.
Now define God. His this entity as described by the Jews/hebrews? Or much more than that?
Who is this we? Certainly not the science community at large. White holes are a hypothetical creation that help solve the Einstein field equations, nothing more. Unless you have some sort of evidence that they are indeed fact.
Why do you keep positing something that's been debunked?
The Bible says we must be "Born Again. We are to pray for wisdom and knowledge (spiritual). The more we pray, the closer we get to God, through his Son Jesus who came to earth in the form of a man.
Genesis, does seem to have inconsistencies because the timeline of when the earth was void. I am not a young earther so I do believe the earth is millions of years old as science says it is.
That's because we've never observed a nothing.
Logic is based on observation of the Universe. Since we have never observed a nothing, we have no ability to come to the conclusion that it is illogical.
Such as what? Name one thing we have observed coming into existence.
Care to explain how it makes sense to say something can "cause" something when there is no time to speak of? Causality, as far as we know, is only linked by time. Additionally, how can something incorporeal create something from nothing ?
And yet you're unable to explain how you came to the conclusion that your first premise is true or why God somehow doesn't have to come into existence.
Im afraid its the kind of misunderstanding that throws a lot of light on the mindset that fundamentalist evangelicals and a fundamentalist atheists have in common: no room for nuances and finer distinctions.
Been there, done that, just one or two posts before this one. Whats wrong with you, elijah? Do you really have that bad a memory? I doubt it. If so, just go through the thread again. But if you can't follow through with a coherent discussion, it makes little sense for me to waste any more time on repeating myself.
Sorry, but logic has been around long before we could observe much of the universe. It's got nothing to do with observation. It's a subject of philosophy and can be done entirely without the help of a telescope or microscope.
Logical premises are borne from observation of the natural world. Example :
All men are mortal (observation)
Socrates is a man (observation)
Socrates is mortal (conclusion based on observation)
...Okay? Care to actually elaborate?
Not really. I trust you can read and think for yourself.
Separate names with a comma.