|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76247
06/25/06 04:12
06/25/06 04:12
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing is essentially a linguistic concept anyway.
I agree. But you either have to believe the universe came from absolutely nothing (thanks to thermodynamics, which simultaneously makes the idea of a creation from nothing sound stupid).
Or you can believe that an unobservable, theoretical, and unimaginable (and apparently infinite) something exists outside of and beyond our universe that created the universe (in some cases these are membranes)....Which is what some scientists believe.
Hm...that last one sounds pretty familiar. 
Yes, but it's pure arrogance to assume that
A) such an infinite higher plane is in any way connected to our minds (souls)
B) that this unimaginable existance is in any way sentient, or able to communicate to human beings.
C) ancient writers were totally aware of it's nature.
In addition, since such an unimaginable infinite plane has been admitted to be a possibility, having no source (since it is infinite) then one can just as easily state the possibility of:
A) An infinite universe in all dimensions - the 'big bang' being a tiny, perhaps commonplace natural event with a cause from many many quadrillion lightyears away. (OR perhaps that we are incorrect in the nature of the universe as we see it, redshift and all that may have a different explanation than expansion)
B)Since it is previously accepted that something can be without cause, the big bang could just as plausibly be the beginning of an infinite universe. Why must time be infinite in both directions? It is equally infinite if it goes forward forever.
In the end, we are in an intermediary stage between accepted universal genesis theories at the moment, due to the fact that the mathematics are so advanced that very few can cope enough to refute eachother or find errors. Thus, since no-one here can understand the proofs of different theories, we could just as easily argue as I did in the start of this that the universe came from a string of ridiculous dieties who eventually created an anthromorphic diety such as yaweh (god).
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76248
06/25/06 04:28
06/25/06 04:28
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Anonymous
OP
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Radioactive decay is RANDOM, but not causeless. I looked into it a bit more, and unless I've been mislead, its caused by the 'strong' and 'weak' forces in a nucleus.
Bell's theorem, is a bit over my head at this point, so I can't refute what its implications are in depth for the time being. But as far as I know, it only involved things reacting to no cause whatsoever. I don't see the relevance.
Vacuum energy is matter appearing out of a vacuum (a vacuum that includes energy, space, and time). So it does nothing to explain how an infinite nothing could have caused time or space, or for that matter useable energy to be converted or to create matter.
Sorry for the double post. But as a side note, in quantum mechanics subatomic particles can appear or dissapear at random "out of nowhere".
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
#76249
06/25/06 22:44
06/25/06 22:44
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Why must time be infinite in both directions? It is equally infinite if it goes forward forever.
If we're on the plane of time that goes on forever, but had a start. It would be just the same as being on the plane of time that starts, and then ends.
The problem is whether or not time goes on forever before now.
Quote:
Sorry for the double post. But as a side note, in quantum mechanics subatomic particles can appear or dissapear at random "out of nowhere".
You mean out of time, space, and energy? I'm talking about a void. Not a vacuum. By void, I mean completely devoid of space, time, matter, energy, anything. An infinite nothingness.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: MathewAllen]
#76251
06/26/06 03:25
06/26/06 03:25
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Yes, but it's pure arrogance to assume that
A) such an infinite higher plane is in any way connected to our minds (souls)
B) that this unimaginable existance is in any way sentient, or able to communicate to human beings.
C) ancient writers were totally aware of it's nature.
Isn't it arrogance to assume that you know for sure that those things aren't true? I mean, you can say you haven't been convinced, but to say for sure that the belief is arrogant, would be arrogant for the same reason.
Quote:
In addition, since such an unimaginable infinite plane has been admitted to be a possibility, having no source (since it is infinite) then one can just as easily state the possibility of:
A) An infinite universe in all dimensions
You mean a universe that infinitely large? And infinitely old? Or am I mistaking what you mean?
Quote:
the 'big bang' being a tiny, perhaps commonplace natural event with a cause from many many quadrillion lightyears away.
If the big bang is the beginning of our universe, then where is this other source? What I mean is, quadrillion lightyears away already implies something within our universe. You would have to say that the universe created itself.
However, this is a whole lot of speculation. Which is fine, because I speculate that my God exists, but speculation shouldn't be considered scientific, although now if you slap the word theory on speculation it automatically becomes true and unquestionable. But, anyway, that's my response to this. It COULD have happened this way. It is physically possible, but I see no valid reason to assume it was. Especially when we haven't been able to observe cosmic evolution in the least. If the universe is infinite, then it was created that way, with no beginning, which would maybe imply we were created by an intelligent designer.
I don't know if I missed anything, but there you go.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/26/06 03:26.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76252
06/26/06 04:17
06/26/06 04:17
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
Foreword: Thanks for the totally on-topic reply, i don't think you missed anything. A note about arrogance: What I meant here was that religions always assume that we are the chosen people, a great race which the creator watches over, we have supernatural elements that return to him - but nothing else does - and all that. I meant that this was arrogance on the part of our species when we are in fact tiny and insignifigant on the grand and glorious scale that is the universe. It's pretty much the opposite of arrogance to accept we are so tiny. Quote:
Confusion about me saying the big bang being commonplace and whatnot
Anyways, what I meant in my prior post was that what we call 'the universe' and assume is the extent of what exists, is probably part of something far larger than we can imagine. Basically what we think of as the universe is a supercluster of clusters of galaxies, expanding in all dimensions from a central point. Maybe there are tonnes of superclusters. This would be part of the infinite universe argument
|
|
\ /
V
Quote:
A) An infinite universe in all dimensions
You mean a universe that infinitely large? And infinitely old? Or am I mistaking what you mean?
..........................
However, this is a whole lot of speculation. Which is fine, because I speculate that my God exists, but speculation shouldn't be considered scientific, although now if you slap the word theory on speculation it automatically becomes true and unquestionable. But, anyway, that's my response to this. It COULD have happened this way. It is physically possible, but I see no valid reason to assume it was. Especially when we haven't been able to observe cosmic evolution in the least. If the universe is infinite, then it was created that way, with no beginning, which would maybe imply we were created by an intelligent designer.
I don't know if I missed anything, but there you go.
I see no valid reason to assume a god.
Anyway, you're right - it IS all speculation, and I hope everyone realizes that for people on our level, all of this is.
In any effect we have some arguable evidence for stellar evolution, the lifecycles of stars, and expansion of the supercluster which we see through red shift.
But these are just as debatable as dating methods and whatnot.
So yes, I Suggested infinite time and space. Entirely because it's physically possible. This is my reason to believe it versus intelligent design. As to anything being created infinite, I believe this statement is a contradiction in terms, and would put your creator beyond infinite.
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: jcl]
#76254
06/26/06 19:23
06/26/06 19:23
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Foreword: Thanks for the totally on-topic reply, i don't think you missed anything.
No problem.
Quote:
A note about arrogance: What I meant here was that religions always assume that we are the chosen people, a great race which the creator watches over, we have supernatural elements that return to him - but nothing else does - and all that.
No Christian that I know of asserts only humans will return to God. In fact, the bible says the entire creation will eventually be restored. Its not like we're necessarily going to some far away place. It seems more like we're going to a place much like this one, except our sin won't have corrupted it.
But.
The alternative to the arrogance of religion is the arrogance of naturalism. We're the greatest living thing that nature has ever created (as far as science can tell us) and we're the ultimate standard for right and wrong. That sounds fairly arrogant to me, too.
Quote:
I meant that this was arrogance on the part of our species when we are in fact tiny and insignifigant on the grand and glorious scale that is the universe.
I agree with what you say here, to an extent. I don't think we're completely unimportant. However, its important to stay humble, since after all pride is what got us into the situation we're in now.
Quote:
It's pretty much the opposite of arrogance to accept we are so tiny.
We can still be tiny while still existing as the result of a creator.
Quote:
Anyways, what I meant in my prior post was that what we call 'the universe' and assume is the extent of what exists,
Maybe its because I care more for testable science, but the only way we could maybe speculate on some other extra-universal existence is with mathematics. But either way, we can come up with all sorts of mathematical 'language' to describe something beyond the universe, and still be completely wrong, even if the math pans out. I don't find it very important to try and figure out if there is some natural state outside the universe. How could we even comprehend it? What exists beyond space? And stuff like that.
Quote:
Basically what we think of as the universe is a supercluster of clusters of galaxies, expanding in all dimensions from a central point. Maybe there are tonnes of superclusters. This would be part of the infinite universe argument
I think our universe is made up of matter, space, time, energy, what have you. What you're saying here sounds like a multiverse theory. I don't buy the whole multiverse thing, because the whole idea is just a way to rationalize away the fine tuning of the universe.
I can't get really more specific than that. I don't even know what makes people think there are multiple universes besides our own. Or why it matters, except that its yet another way to say we weren't designed.
Quote:
In any effect we have some arguable evidence for stellar evolution, the lifecycles of stars, and expansion of the supercluster which we see through red shift.
I think red shift is still quite an open topic, but I'm rather ignorant on astronomy or whatever.
Watching stars die, however, doesn't prove that they are created. I find it interesting that every source I read calls the birth of stars a sure thing, but I have yet to see any source provide any proof that stars have been born except they are sure that they are.
Quote:
So yes, I Suggested infinite time and space. Entirely because it's physically possible.
Then we get back into thermodynamics. I don't know if this applies to what you're saying, but if the universe is infinitely old, then there would be no more usable energy. The universe would be completely dark and motionless and completely cold.
Quote:
As to anything being created infinite, I believe this statement is a contradiction in terms, and would put your creator beyond infinite.
I was speaking more in terms of something infinitely large, because I don't believe something could be infinitely old (due to thermodynamics once again). Perhaps, if the universe were infinitely large that might solve the useable energy problem. I don't know all of the physics on that, but then that would make the big bang a useless theory (the universe would have to have been infinitely large to begin with, otherwise it could only be infinitely large by expanding for an infinite amount of time, and that brings us right back to thermodynamics). In which case, I think it would be all the more logical to assume that we were created, perfectly ordered, right from the start. Frankly, I hope the universe is infinitely large. But we'll see.
Quote:
There is a priciple in science called Ockham's razor: If you have two different hypotheses that both explain the same observation, the hypothesis that is less complicated and makes less assumptions is normally the true one.
I still have yet to hear an explanation of where it all came from. What I see is the question pushed back into infinity. The universe was created by the big bang, which was created by thing a, which was created by thing b, which was created by thing c. And its all speculation. So...Okham's razor works against you on this, I believe. Its more likely that we were created out of an infinite nothingness, by a creator, than that we have an infinite regress of events that we can barely even comprehend, none of which even explain the big question but simply explain the event after it that hadn't answered the question either. Its similar to watching science chase its tail like a dog.
It baffles my mind.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/26/06 21:44.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#76255
07/05/06 19:20
07/05/06 19:20
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
MathewAllen
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 363
Ottawa
|
Quote:
No Christian that I know of asserts only humans will return to God. In fact, the bible says the entire creation will eventually be restored. Its not like we're necessarily going to some far away place. It seems more like we're going to a place much like this one, except our sin won't have corrupted it.
But.
The alternative to the arrogance of religion is the arrogance of naturalism. We're the greatest living thing that nature has ever created (as far as science can tell us) and we're the ultimate standard for right and wrong. That sounds fairly arrogant to me, too.
I agree with what you say here, to an extent. I don't think we're completely unimportant. However, its important to stay humble, since after all pride is what got us into the situation we're in now.
Well actually evolutionary theory would have us believe we're incredibly flawed creatures which have sacrificed most of our physical perfection for social and mental development. A shark, or those bacteria that can repair their dna and are thus immortal, would be the ultimate lifeforms since they've been in stasis so long.
Also, I'm pretty sure most christians I know don't believe animals have a soul, and thus that they do not return to the creator. I've debated that a few times with people actually.
Quote:
We can still be tiny while still existing as the result of a creator.
True, but not in the metaphorical sense - according to most theists who think we're special that is.
Quote:
Maybe its because I care more for testable science, but the only way we could maybe speculate on some other extra-universal existence is with mathematics. But either way, we can come up with all sorts of mathematical 'language' to describe something beyond the universe, and still be completely wrong, even if the math pans out. I don't find it very important to try and figure out if there is some natural state outside the universe. How could we even comprehend it? What exists beyond space? And stuff like that.
If the math pans out it tends to mean things are going well for a theory. But anyways, I agree it doesn't really matter. But if it's at all possible that theres a natural state outside our perception of reality it does put some stock for both sides, in that it supports other 'planes' of existance for you guys, and supports time before time, a metaverse before the universe if you will, for atheists. At the same time it begs the question of how the time before time came to be... which isn't really even applicable since well.. there's no time...
Quote:
I think our universe is made up of matter, space, time, energy, what have you. What you're saying here sounds like a multiverse theory. I don't buy the whole multiverse thing, because the whole idea is just a way to rationalize away the fine tuning of the universe.
An incredibly massive supercluster of superclusters would not be a multiverse, just an infinite or near-infinite universe since all that would seperate expansion points would be space, time, and energy. There's absolutely no evidence for this theory except that we've never seen any stellar phenomena that is unique before - so it's a reasonable assumption that an expanding supercluster of galaxies is not unique.
Quote:
I think red shift is still quite an open topic, but I'm rather ignorant on astronomy or whatever.
Watching stars die, however, doesn't prove that they are created. I find it interesting that every source I read calls the birth of stars a sure thing, but I have yet to see any source provide any proof that stars have been born except they are sure that they are.
We're watching stars be born right now.
Quote:
Then we get back into thermodynamics. I don't know if this applies to what you're saying, but if the universe is infinitely old, then there would be no more usable energy. The universe would be completely dark and motionless and completely cold.
Infinite universe = infinite energy.
Quote:
I was speaking more in terms of something infinitely large, because I don't believe something could be infinitely old (due to thermodynamics once again). Perhaps, if the universe were infinitely large that might solve the useable energy problem. I don't know all of the physics on that, but then that would make the big bang a useless theory (the universe would have to have been infinitely large to begin with, otherwise it could only be infinitely large by expanding for an infinite amount of time, and that brings us right back to thermodynamics). In which case, I think it would be all the more logical to assume that we were created, perfectly ordered, right from the start. Frankly, I hope the universe is infinitely large. But we'll see.
Indeed, we'll see.
Quote:
I still have yet to hear an explanation of where it all came from. What I see is the question pushed back into infinity. The universe was created by the big bang, which was created by thing a, which was created by thing b, which was created by thing c. And its all speculation. So...Okham's razor works against you on this, I believe. Its more likely that we were created out of an infinite nothingness, by a creator, than that we have an infinite regress of events that we can barely even comprehend, none of which even explain the big question but simply explain the event after it that hadn't answered the question either. Its similar to watching science chase its tail like a dog.
It baffles my mind.
It baffles my mind how you don't see a creator as pushing the question back in the exact same way
|
|
|
Re: Who's god's god? (kudos to phemox)
[Re: MathewAllen]
#76256
07/06/06 22:08
07/06/06 22:08
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Well actually evolutionary theory would have us believe we're incredibly flawed creatures which have sacrificed most of our physical perfection for social and mental development. A shark, or those bacteria that can repair their dna and are thus immortal, would be the ultimate lifeforms since they've been in stasis so long.
Fair enough. But I was thinking in terms of deciding what the ultimate intelligent power is. According to theists, we're ignorant little runts, barely able to hold it together (in a sense). According to atheists, we're never wrong because there is no such thing as wrong. I was thinking more in terms of that.
Quote:
Also, I'm pretty sure most christians I know don't believe animals have a soul, and thus that they do not return to the creator. I've debated that a few times with people actually.
I'm not too sure what the bible has to say on that one. I personally believe animals could have a soul, but I'm not really sure what a soul is.
Quote:
At the same time it begs the question of how the time before time came to be... which isn't really even applicable since well.. there's no time...
That's one problem. If the there is a pre-universal state that existed before time, then it would have existed forever in which case there would be no universe. Time would have to have no beginning or creation to rule God out on that one. But, ignoring that the universe DOES exist for one moment, we have two options.
a. Time doesn't exist.
b. Time does exist.
You can't use time existing now as proof of the supposition that it has a reason for existing. So given those two possibilities, why should time even exist in the first place? And if time doesn't exist at one point, then it doesn't exist for an eternity in which case time will never exist.
Which raises the interesting question, if we can prove our universe hasn't existed forever, how do we prove time hasn't? I'm not a physicist, so I couldn't imagine. I only have some layman guesses as to why our universe couldn't exist forever.
Quote:
An incredibly massive supercluster of superclusters would not be a multiverse, just an infinite or near-infinite universe since all that would seperate expansion points would be space, time, and energy.
Ah, I think I misunderstood you.
Quote:
We're watching stars be born right now.
That's what I hear, but no one goes in depth. I'll research this later.
Quote:
Infinite universe = infinite energy.
Indeed, but this raises an interesting paradox. If the universe is infinite, that means at any given point in time (we'll use an absolute amount for the point for simplicity's sake, say one second) an infinite amount of energy is being used. What's X if infinity - infinity = x.
Quote:
It baffles my mind how you don't see a creator as pushing the question back in the exact same way
Well, I personally have the assumption that God did inspire the bible, and He didn't lie about himself. By His definition, He wouldn't need a creator.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
