Basic Bottom Line Argument For God

No, I'd make a lousy God! Altho I would like to apply for the job of Holy Spirit, and "convict' ppl of their sins!! ha ha

 

you learned about both 'disorder and chaos' from literature and beliefs

just like you learned about 'god'

You believe in the biblical literature because it does not require you to seek understanding of what you do not know.

You have settled in upon belief, once you realized no one else could give you the answers you wanted.

that same reason is why the religions even still exist

you dont want to read what will destroy your ignorance

that is a lie

that the morons that made you believe you came from nothing, are the morons that have fueled you to further then same line of BS.

You are from your parents and mankind is from the garden (nature/god itself) and these facts can be proven but if you want to make the claim, 'well what made mother nature' then you are in the exact same circle jerk of 'well, prove your god'................ neither question can be answered with 'experience'

No one can answer either, with any integrity of being a direct 'witness'

i know 'the garden' is my everything

so do you

but you choose to discount, the air you breath, the food you eat, the heaven of earth, because you are not appreciating being alive!


you have been taught to expect 'more'

 

you created these stupid posts

So i agree!

no wonder you have a bullseye on your butt.

You want to judge others when you will not judge yourself, first!

A wolf in sheeps clothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That post wasnt meant for you...as MOST ppl''s post on this forum ARE NOT..you always 'inject yourself' into the conversation....but, just to let you know, as they say...now, back to 'ignoring your folly'...

 

You know, I could go run all these definitions down for you, but I'm not going to do your homework for you. Actually explaining it would require quite a lengthy post, and would reference a lot of other ideas that you'll probably want more details about and want some evidence for. That's beyond the scope of this thread, and frankly I'm not a physics teacher anyway. Especially not when all you'll do in response is ask some inane one-liner questions like "could you tell me what the meaning of 'is' is?"

You can google the orthodox definition each of these pretty easily. Wikipedia, if nothing else, provides an adequate quantum field theory related explanation of vacuum fluctuations, vacuum states, virtual particles, density, and the rest. Or go pick up an introductory text book on the subject.

Ask a string theorist, I guess. There's disagreement over how to describe space. Space doesn't have a whole lot of meaning when you're talking about a singularity anyway. They don't really take up any space. The problem is there is no adequate word other than 'point' to describe an infinitely dense hole in space.

The mass of everything within it, divided by zero volume; the classical definition of density. Cosmologists call this infinite (for reasons I'm not going to get into), mathematicians call it undefined. In the case of the singularity that started the universe, it would have had the mass of everything in the universe--though mass is a bit of a nonsensical concept without space or matter.

The singularity we're talking about wouldn't actually be in that state anymore. The expansion that caused the universe would have the byproduct of ending the singularity. Now, other singularities, like black holes, do have a measurable impact on other objects. The one that kicked off the big bang wouldn't be here anymore. In a sense the universe and the singularity are still one and the same, they're just in different states--the universe is the singularity, expanded. From this latter perspective, we could definitely say that the forces acting between any part of the singularity and another part of the singularity are measurable... and described by the laws of physics.

Given the complete lack of knowledge about what goes on outside the universe, how the universe interacts with anything potentially outside of it is entirely unknown. It's not even certain that there is anything outside of it; by some models, it's not even possible for anything to exist outside of the universe.

There's disagreement over the cause of the acceleration of the universe's expansion. Some also dispute whether it is actually expanding at all, but more work needs to be done to verify that. In a perfect, ideal universe, there would be money for that.

I sincerely doubt you have any interest in the subject except as fodder to maliciously misunderstand. But hopefully others reaching the thread will get some benefits from this.

It would have no representation.

The concept of 5 is a material concept; it is represented in the thinker's brain as electrochemical reactions and the topography of the brain's neurons. Your mind does not rip the idea from some immaterial ether. Ideas are physical things too--represented as electrochemical reactions in the brain of the person thinking them. I suppose they can also be represented in sound, writing, magnetic states, and more, since these ideas can be communicated to others.

I don't know why philosophers like to pretend that ideas are less physical than the brains they occur within.

Sure, yeah, similar examples can be found in black holes, which are measurable and do have a material existence. It's just a very strange material existence, compressed into no space because of gravity.

Numbers and singularities both materially exist. In this sense, they are similar. Singularities do materially exist, they're just very difficult to think about because they're very far outside the norm of life on Earth. There is no good way to relate a singularity to something that people experience in their ordinary lives.

Well, the difference between a singularity and a regular object is only that the object takes up a volume of space, and a singularity does not. How you want to describe or think about that is up to you. I personally have a hard time thinking of something as an object that takes up no space, but maybe you don't.

None, I suppose. It's just a different way of mentally categorizing the concept. The word 'object' carries a lot of baggage with it, and gets people thinking in terms of life on Earth and analogies related to that... but Singularities are fundamentally very much not the same thing at all.

Well, fortunately singularities are very closely related to the material universe. Science is a collective method of interpreting observed facts about the universe; it is a fundamentally material discipline. One person's feelings and emotions are checked by other scientists, and excised of most of that emotional content by peer review.

It's the naturalistic worldview, not the "atheistic" worldview.

 

If you want to go worship quantum uncertainty, sure, go ahead. That has nothing to do with actual religious beliefs of real people, nor does it impart the sort of agency implied by the term god. The word "God" has baggage, but you're trying your best not to admit it.

To use the classic 'debate' technique;

god[god]   Origin God   [god]
noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

 

Unfounded speculation. Not only are there several explanations today, but there will likely be several more before someone figures out a way to test it.

 

There is no answer if honest with yourself, not god or science will ever answer the great mystery of the mind bending philospphical question, why are we here?

But this simple truth doesnt help some people, so they blindly believe in nonsense. Either with invisable entities or big bangs the great cosmic fart.

Persoannly i am happy with accepting the nothingness view, i stare into the abyss and content.

 

It's not mind bending at all, it's begging the question by implying that there is some high reason. Aside from obvious answers like "my parents had sex," there is no grand reason for any individual's existence. People define their own meaning, they give themselves reasons for existing. It's not something imposed from outside, it's something defined from within.

People are fascinated by this question, I suppose, because they simply don't want to accept the simple truth that there really isn't any specific reason for their existence. I guess they think it would reflect negatively on their own importance or something.

Nonsense. The folks talking about the big bang are looking for material reasons for existence; they're looking for the how of existence. The religious nuts are trying to find out why there is existence. They're answering completely different questions.

Scientists talking about "why we're here" are looking for the causal chain of events that explain how we got where we are. Priests talking about "why we're here" are trying to invent a philosophical reason why we are where we are. Different questions. The question of how is a meaningful, valid question. The question of why is pretty meaningless, since the universe seems to act without purpose or agency, and therefore has no philosophical motivations.

 

It's not mind bending at all, it's begging the question by implying that there is some high reason. Aside from obvious answers like "my parents had sex," there is no grand reason for any individual's existence. People define their own meaning, they give themselves reasons for existing. It's not something imposed from outside, it's something defined from within.

People are fascinated by this question, I suppose, because they simply don't want to accept the simple truth that there really isn't any specific reason for their existence. I guess they think it would reflect negatively on their own importance or something.

Nonsense. The folks talking about the big bang are looking for material reasons for existence; they're looking for the how of existence. The religious nuts are trying to find out why there is existence. They're answering completely different questions.

Scientists talking about "why we're here" are looking for the causal chain of events that explain how we got where we are. Priests talking about "why we're here" are trying to invent a philosophical reason why we are where we are. Different questions. The question of how is a meaningful, valid question. The question of why is pretty meaningless, since the universe seems to act without purpose or agency, and therefore has no philosophical motivations.

 

and if the must be a cause how dose got get around that requirement for itself?

 

exactly.

and if we stick to facts, and don't try to impose a many layered "meaning" on the lives of others, then there is no conflict.

we can stick to a philosophicasl discussion about the how and why.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzL7buTLMTQ"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzL7buTLMTQ[/ame]

 

Of course, but we're asking for evidence. Think courts of law evidence.

 

When I use words I know what those words mean for me.
I know what words you, scientists and atheists use mean for me.
I know what they mean for some tiny percentage of people, for an example, for all professional mechanical engineers around the world.

If I was asked what they mean for me my answers wouldn’t take more than a few sentences and they would go off the top of my head. For literate people I would reduce the answers to a few letters.

1. P,M=0
2. M/V=D
3. x,y or x,y,z; or x,y,z, (t) => P,M,V=0
If, speaking about density, I posted: http://page-book.ru/i214365
a literate Chinese would understand me.


I asked you what these words mean for you, scientists and atheists.
You, atheists do not answer. You don’t.
If you could you would. But you do not.
You twist, make up excuses and strawmen.
One does not have to be a theorist to see clearly that scientists and atheists do not know what the words they say mean for them, less for other people. They are not different from mentally handicapped who murmur words with no account for the meaning of those words. They just get excited by the sound of their own voices.

You guess ( but you don’t know) that I should ask a string theorist what your words mean for you. You don’t even tell which definitions you are using, – are they orthodox or… not orthodox, but…?



I have a pink elephant making gray holes in the fabric of the universe. I can’t explain gray holes because it would require quite a lengthy post, and would reference a lot of other ideas that you'll probably want more details about and want some evidence for. If you want to know what the fabric of the universe is you shall ask a sting theorist, I guess.

You get lost as you go. You say “There's disagreement”, ” doesn't have a whole lot of meaning”, ‘’ there is no adequate word’’. You build your life and worldview on disagreements and absence of meaning and words.

What is the difference between the scientific theories accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community and my domesticated pink spaghetti monster which has density of n divided by infinity as the cause of the universe? I see none. Both are equal absurd. One does not have to be a theorist to see that.


One does not have to be a theorist to see that on other hand the rock bottom argument for existence of the first cause has been submitted with full account of the words used by those who have been submitting it. It has met no objections. All scientists and atheists believe that it has been proven wrong over the course of 5 centuries, but no scientist can reproduce a single objection.
“A pink elephant fluctuating inside of a point of the fabric of the universe did it” is not an objection. It is just a falsification which proves that the first cause theory meets the requirement of being a subject to falsification to be scientific.


I need not to google to know that what you, scientists and atheists have been saying is absurd. I made my comment. You keep on proving that you can’t give an account of the meaning of the words you are using.

The rock bottom argument is that scientists and atheists use words but cannot account for the meaning of their own words.


Vacuum excludes density.
Density is a statement about absence of vacuum.
A point is a statement which claims absence of material existence, absence of density or volume or mass.
Points do not exist materially or immaterially. They are abstract, geometrical notions.
The result of division by infinity or 0 can have 2 different values in mathematics and cosmology if and only if mathematics has nothing to do to cosmology.
Acceleration of other masses forced to an object with an infinite mass is infinite.
Etc. etc. etc. I will not go through the pile of absurd you produce. It is your life. If you choose to fake yourself and never be, it is your choice.


And so you go piling absurd. I see not that scientists and atheists realize what effect they are making on people who live by observed reality, but not by ungrounded dreams and fantasies.


BTW. I never ask for evidence or discuss such. I always ask for observations of the events and existences in the reality around you. Scientists/ atheists live in their own reality, in their own space; in dreams, their own fantasies and mythology.

 

This, by the way, is why you don't ask an engineer about theory.

You're confining this to classical density (meaning density on a normal atomic scale), which is not applicable from a quantum perspective. Hence the need to discuss virtual particles (finite particles of a transient nature), vacuum fluctuation (shifts in the background energy of space), etc. You can't determine the actual mass for a given volume because of uncertainty; only propose a probability distribution for various masses for a given volume. Which means moving into probabilistic algebra, not simple algebra. In other words, M/V = D only gives you an approximate probable density. This is good enough for engineers, but it's not good enough for physicists.

You literally can't meaningfully discuss density (the amount of mass for a given volume) from a quantum perspective (meaning the subatomic (beneath atomic--the constituent parts of atoms) perspective) without discussing vacuum fluctuations (temporary and transient changes in the background energy state of a point in space)--because of uncertainty (the principle that there are firm informational limits on the knowable properties of a particle).

Which words?

Correction; we do not like spending a lot of time and effort writing replies when we're quite sure they'll just be dismissed or ignored at the convenience of the other poster.

Which words would you like to see defined?

I have no intention of typing up a dictionary for you. Not when there are perfectly viable ones already available. I am using the conventional definitions.

Quite orthodox terminology--for quantum physics.

"The answer is not agreed upon." There is no clearer description than that. There are a number of proposed explanations that might be correct pending further evidence. In other words, there is not enough data available to narrow the proposals further. I don't know how to make a simple statement like that any less complex.

Which, by the way, is part of the reason I'm not typing up a dictionary for you. Because you'll just go to pedantic extremes and ignore what you don't want to talk about.

There's nothing I'm going to be able to do to change your mind about that, so there's little point in conversing further on that subject.

No one has yet posed a meaningful argument for a first cause of the theological variety. There is literally no reason to inject god into the proposal. In fact, it's not even determined if there was a first cause to be debating. Cause itself is defined as an event that precedes another event, yet initiates the later event; precedence requires time, and since time is a result of the universe's existence, there can be no cause of the universe. The theological notion of a first cause is synonymous with the cause of the universe. Granted, there is an alternate conception of a 'first cause'--referring to the first event in the universe which initiates a later event. However, that would only be possible after the universe already existed.

In other words, because time and the existence of the universe are intrinsically linked, it is quite correct to say that the universe has always existed, regardless of the actual mechanical reason for the universe's existence. There has literally never been a point in time where the universe didn't exist.

You assume that my unwillingness to perform labor on your behalf is a result of the inability to do that. No, rather I simply do not care enough to devote the time to the task. I don't believe that you have any genuine honest motivations in this, and I am quite sure that you would dismiss the definitions out of hand.

Density is, more correctly, a description of the scarcity of vacuum. Meaning that it describes how little vacuum there is. There are still spaces between particles, and that space is the vacuum being discussed. Even hyperdense exotic matter doesn't eliminate some space between particles, even if it is very little.

Point is a fundamental word used to describe a location in space that does actually exist. That space has properties; among which includes density.

Incorrect. They are two different terms used to describe the same result; mainly because cosmologists deal with observable phenomena, and mathematicians deal in abstract concepts. "Undefined" doesn't make sense as a description of concrete observations, so they use the word infinite instead.

In other words, they use subtly different terminology to describe the same result.

Yet the volume of the space is zero; meaning that its density would be "undefined", which makes no sense from an observational standpoint. Again, you're quibbling over pedantic issues. Which is exactly why no one will do the legwork you ask of them. When you don't grant a person the basic level of respect required to debate their argument rather than their presentation, you do not encourage them to recognize you at all.

 

You, by the way got it; you better not to ask anyone who lives by reality and not by pipe dreams about theory.

I am not confining anything to anything. I am doing the opposite. Anyone who has some decency can see that. I said: “When I use words I know what those words mean for me.
I know what words you, scientists and atheists use mean for me.
I know what they mean for some tiny percentage of people, for an example, for all professional mechanical engineers around the world.

If I was asked what they mean for me my answers wouldn’t take more than a few sentences and they would go off the top of my head. For literate people I would reduce the answers to a few letters.

1. P,M=0
2. M/V=D
3. x,y or x,y,z; or x,y,z, (t) => P,M,V=0
If, speaking about density, I posted: http://page-book.ru/i214365
a literate Chinese would understand me.


I asked you what these words mean for you, scientists and atheists.
You, atheists do not answer. You don’t.
If you could you would. But you do not.
You twist, make up excuses and strawmen.”


Asking what these words mean for you, scientists and atheists is not confining them to anything. A high school drop out can see that. All one has to have to see that c decency and comprehension, which, as you keep on proving, are completely absent in scientists and atheists.

I, as well as some other people, including designers of space ships and nuclear reactors, can meaningfully discuss density, and I do from my perspective (which does not exclude QM). You literally can't meaningfully discuss density from your perspective and you don’t. This is one of the facts about scientists and atheists I have been pointing to and you have been helping me to illustrate.

Density in your context has been one of them.

Since you have been spending a lot of time and effort writing replies you're quite sure they'll not be dismissed or ignored at the convenience of the other poster. What is the correction? What is relevance?

Density in your context and from your perspective has been one of them.

I typed my definitions. What is your dictionary, what are your definitions? Is conventional the same as orthodox? When you said that your definitions were not orthodox did you mean that they thus were conventional?

You need not to repeat yourself 3 times. My comment was: You say “There's disagreement”, ” doesn't have a whole lot of meaning”, ‘’ there is no adequate word’’. ‘given the complete lack of knowledge about what goes on outside the universe, how the universe interacts with anything potentially outside of it is entirely unknown. It's not even certain that there is anything outside of it’’ your build life and worldview on disagreements and absence of meaning and words.

Since the answer is not agreed upon, and words you are using don’t have a whole lot of meaning, and there are no adequate words to describe the values you operate, any statement science has made about origins and procedure of the universe as well as any other statement has no more relevance to reality than tripe of mentally handicapped.
On other hand the rock bottom argument for existence of the first cause has been submitted with full account of the words used by those who have been submitting it. It has met no objections. All scientists and atheists believe that it has been proven wrong over the course of 5 centuries, but no scientist can reproduce a single objection.
“A pink elephant fluctuating inside of a point of the fabric of the universe did it” is not an objection. It is just a falsification which proves that the first cause theory meets the requirement of being a subject to falsification to be scientific.

Oh, sure. Go away scientists and atheists. Stop starting and finishing all conversations with the same statement, - you Xn are too stupid and ignorant to understand what we scientist are saying, we are not going to type dictionary for you”. I cannot convert even most decent a reasonable people, only God can, but I can for sure make them to grow disgusted by the company of scientists and atheists.

You keep repeating this kindergarten argument, the sleeve joker of scientists and atheists. So far it’s you who been dismissing my definitions out of hand. What was your 1st sentence? Nobody has heard yours. Go ahead, don’t be so afraid, fire.

You stated that you literally can't meaningfully discuss density. You can or you cannot? Which of your statement is true? Another word you used was vacuum. I asked, - What is vacuum? How do you measure scarcity? What units are you expressing it in?

What is a fundamental word? What other words are fundamental? Who made them, in what classification or dictionary? A location of what? Can you show me existence of a point?

You just said, - ‘Ask a string theorist, I guess. There's disagreement over how to describe space. Space doesn't have a whole lot of meaning when you're talking about a singularity anyway.”

Now it seems you are saying that there is no disagreement in listing properties of space. Have you changed your mind about the reality surrounding you? OK, density, the word you have not been able to tell meaning of, is one of the properties of space. What are other properties and what units do you measure them in? What units do you measure density of space?
You said “There are still spaces between particles, and that space is the vacuum being discussed.’ What are the densities of spaces between particles?

Then what is incorrect? I said: The result of division by infinity or 0 can have 2 different values in mathematics and cosmology if and only if mathematics has nothing to do to cosmology. For a mathematician infinite means not undefined, like 3 means not 2, not infinite, not undefined. When a mathematician hears “undefined” he hears not “infinite.” If the result of division by 0 is undefined, in mathematics it means not infinite. If the result of division 6 by 2 is 3, in mathematics it means not infinite, not 4, not undefined.