God Disproved

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

spiltteeth
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 02:56 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;145185 wrote:


Thank you for your criticism I really enjoyed reading it. (sorry for the delay, I have been very busy with school-work.)



Quote:
Yes, I thought about this, but if this god is omnipotent, what role should logic have? For example, gravity governs our existence, could god not just do away with the idea of gravity entirely? Sure nothing would make sense, and nothing would work, but he can't be bound by laws, even if he made them.
If God wanted to make a square triangle, then the instant he made the triangle, the definition would change. I did not want to go into conflicting all[attributes] because not everyone's idea of a god is omnibenevolent ect. But I do believe that we can take the all-perfect approach. In other words if God is all-perfect in, he can't create imperfection. But the thing is, that perfect and good are subjective. Also, imperfection wouldbecome perfection, and only in the eyes of God would it really matter. There are certainly flaws with the first paradox bit, but I plan to sort them out in my next edit.


By 'Omnipotence' most Christian philosophers mean 'Maximal Power' as I say.
Yr presenting Omnipotence as Decartes idea of universal possibilism which holds that that there are no necessary truths, but virtually no other Christian philosopher then or today agrees with him, rather they say 'Omnipotence' means having 'Maximal Power' or the maximal amount of powerful attributes.
Most Christian philosophers agree there must be necessary truths. However, it does not follow from the necessity of the truths of logic and mathematics that the fundamental truths of mathematics and logic exist in some way (as abstract objects) and God is subject to them, the Christian say's that the necessary truths of logic (and perhaps math) just are representations of the way God's mind essentially thinks.
Theologically, such a doctrine ties in beautifully with the prologue to John's Gospel on Christ's being the Logos of God.

So God CANNOT do the logically impossible as the laws of logic is necessary, but they are simply descriptions of how God necessarily reasons.

Quote:
Some would say that time began at the Big Bang, but the Big Bang theory does not attempt to describe the origin of the universe, but how the universe developed from a singularity. Nor does it attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside of the universe. Nothingness is, on extremely small scales, in physics, due to the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, nothing is really a boiling brew of virtual particles on a time scale so small that you cannot see them. We cannot measure virtual particles directly, but we can measure their effects indirectly. For example we can chart the effects with mathematic calculations, of the particles in a proton. The empty space, accounts for 90% of the mass of the protons. So time is infinite. And the point is not null.


I think yr confusing 'nothingness' with 'nothing' - the universe did NOT come from nothingness, but from nothing at all.

P. C. W. Davies explains,
Quote:
"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."


In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

Quote:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.


Four of the world's most prominent astronomers described that event in these words:

Quote:
The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.


Stephen Hawking reports,
Quote:
"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang."


In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. .But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum - there's nothing.

QM phenomena are not appearing from nothing, they are appearing in a vacuum.
So, nothing is really beginning to exist from nothing - there was something already there that is changing
The big bang theory sates all Matter, space, energy and time come into being from nothing. Not from a vacuum.
This environment exists IN SPACE, where quantum mechanical events are possible. The problem is that this does not work for the beginning of the universe, because there WAS NO SPACE prior to the instance of the big bang.

As Davies admits,
Quote:
"The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre- existing energy into material form."


Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider explains of the vacuum fluctuation models of the universe:

Quote:
The violent microstructure of the [quantum] vacuum has been used in attempts to explain the origin of the universe as a long-lived vacuum fluctuation. But some authors have connected with this legitimate speculations [sic] far-reaching metaphysical claims, or at most they couched their mathematics when they maintained "the creation of the universe out of nothing." . . .
From the philosophical point of view it is essential to note that the foregoing is far from being a spontaneous generation of everything from naught, but the origin of that embryonic bubble is really a causal process leading from a primordial substratum with a rich physical structure to a materialized substratum of the vacuum.



Quote:
He can exist in time, but not infinitely. I was assuming that god was infinite, so in order for him to be infinite, he would need to be in another realm or an alternate universe where none of our logic applies. Including time.


I'm confused by yr use of 'infinite' - God is ETERNAL in that He has always existed and always will. If you mean 'infinitley' powerful etc then Christian philosophers usually define that as Maximally powerful, or have the maximal amount of powerful attributes.
I don't see the contradiction, maybe you could dumb it down for me -thanks!
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 04:20 pm
@Theologikos,
I am having trouble quoting you for some reason, so I will go by paragraph/section.

When I looked up the word, I couldn't find any definition that meant anything other than the Descartes view of omnipotence. I understand why Christian philosophers would want to change the meaning, but I don't know why they just say, he is omnipotent in regard to the laws of nature. Which is what they are saying it's just that they don't want to admit that their God isn't outside of a logical omnipotence. But I also don't understand where they even get these attributes for their God either. :/ The Bible doesn't seem to indicate an omniscient or an omnipotent being especially one who is benevolent. (But that is a discussion for another thread) So am I to go by their definition which isn't really omnipotent at all or what we set it out to be? I think they should create another word that means exactly what they are saying in order to avoid further confusion. :/ Until then, they should stop changing the definition of omnipotence.

In regard to the next part, (this will just cover the rest)
Firstly, please explain the difference between 'nothing' and 'nothingness'. :listening:

You are referring to a beginning of time and space, but we only say that the Big Bang was the beginning of time and space because that is the only useful thing to measure time off of. If the universe Time before that is pointless to us, because if it goes forever, we can't measure off of it. So Hawkins is saying that the beginning of time, (for purposes of usefulness) began at the Big Bang. We all know that the universe must have a beginning and that it's time is moving in a ray, but there was time before it because nothing, is active. That was the point.

Isn't a vacuum just the absence of matter, and gas pressure? If so, I don't see how, before the Big bang that nothing isn't a vacuum :perplexed:

My position is that, if the Big Bang was initiated by nothing and that nothing inn QM is something, then nothing existed before the Big bang, and that, that nothing was active, creating time.

I mean infinite as in eternal, In the case you are referring to I am talking about his existence. IF time is eternal, and nothingness can create time, then nothingness always was. So if nothingness always was, it is infinite. In fact, already existent time is creating itself now. And there is hypothetical time being created as well. We know that the hypothetical time has passed because we are here, but God can't have been there because it hasn't happened yet. It has happened, and it hasn't happened. As illustrated in my diagram.

But assuming that nothing doesn't create time at all, but a change in state does, God couldn't have created anything.
[from another post]
In addition, even if you didn't need time for something to exist, you need time for something to change state. The states are nonexistence to existence, So for a creator to create anything, she would need to create time first and foremost. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else is not and cannot be the basic reason for everything.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 06:44 PM ----------

Does anyone know how I can go back and edit my thread!? I was planning on this to gradually change with new Ideas, but I can't find the 'edit' option anymore.

Okay anyone who is reading this thread or is subscribed, I am going to create a blog so that I can actually edit my position. >.< I will post the link on my profile when it is up.
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 05:27 pm
@Theologikos,
[QUOTE=Theologikos;145297] I am having trouble quoting you for some reason, so I will go by paragraph/section. [/QUOTE] The easiest way to respond to long posts or to respond to multiple posts at the same time is to quote post and then copy that into a world processor where you can delete and copy at will including the ([/QUOTE] and the header quotes for attribution. It gets difficult in the small response edit window on the forum. Once you have what you want just copy and paste back into the forum response window.
[QUOTE=Theologikos;145297] Does anyone know how I can go back and edit my thread!? I was planning on this to gradually change with new Ideas, but I can't find the 'edit' option anymore.[/QUOTE]You can not edit old posts (I am not sure of the exact timing or rule) that have already been responded to. To allow that would make it difficult to follow the thread and make sense of responses to posts that were subsequently edited after being responded to or thanked.

One can try to talk about existence, time and space before the big bang but it would be pure speculation without any scientific basis. Perhaps on this point I agree with Wittgenstein "Whereof one cannot speak,thereof one must (should) be silent". There may be other universes with other physical laws or parameters. Our universe (the big bang) may be the result of a collision of two other M-brane universes. Our universe is the only one we have access to and we have enough trouble dealing with that. Eternity and nothingness are concepts which transcend my ability to conceive in any meaningful manner. Our universe has an alpha (a beginning, the big bang) and will have an omega (an end, either gravitational collapse, or endless expansion to the cold and the dark, or perhaps collision with another universe). In the interim we have time, space, matter and mind to deal with which are not independent variables.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 05:54 pm
@prothero,
Thank You for the information!


To anyone reading this thread, please go to my updated blog, which promulgates my edited position. You can leave comments/questions/remarks there. Smile

http://www.philosophyforum.com/blogs/theologikos/857-god-disproved-revison-under-scrutiny.html
 
spiltteeth
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 06:32 pm
@Theologikos,
Quote:
Theologikos;145297]I am having trouble quoting you for some reason, so I will go by paragraph/section.

When I looked up the word, I couldn't find any definition that meant anything other than the Descartes view of omnipotence. I understand why Christian philosophers would want to change the meaning, but I don't know why they just say, he is omnipotent in regard to the laws of nature. Which is what they are saying it's just that they don't want to admit that their God isn't outside of a logical omnipotence. But I also don't understand where they even get these attributes for their God either. :/ The Bible doesn't seem to indicate an omniscient or an omnipotent being especially one who is benevolent. (But that is a discussion for another thread) So am I to go by their definition which isn't really omnipotent at all or what we set it out to be? I think they should create another word that means exactly what they are saying in order to avoid further confusion. :/ Until then, they should stop changing the definition of omnipotence.


No, it has to do what you mean by 'Omnipotence.' As I say, except for Decarte God has always been defined as not being able to do the logically impossible, even way back in Aristotle's time.
It's pretty much been an official staple at least since 1100 ad with Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
But even BEFORE then, "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible,
the Bible never claims that God can do all things.
In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie.
Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character.
However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

Thats been understood for thousands of yrs. In fact, except for Decarte, its been the ATHEIST's whose been trying to define omnipotence to include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible.

I have no idea where you looked up the word but just look at wikipedia, it's clear : Omnipotence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
In regard to the next part, (this will just cover the rest)
Firstly, please explain the difference between 'nothing' and 'nothingness'. :listening:


I really have no idea what 'nothingness' is - sounds like some sort of metaphysical construct.
But pure nothingness "precedes" all being, as birth precedes life. Absolute nothingness has no properties at all and therefore no potentialities. It is devoid of possibilities, as it is of everything else (which is why something can't come into being from nothing).

Quote:
You are referring to a beginning of time and space, but we only say that the Big Bang was the beginning of time and space because that is the only useful thing to measure time off of. If the universe Time before that is pointless to us, because if it goes forever, we can't measure off of it. So Hawkins is saying that the beginning of time, (for purposes of usefulness) began at the Big Bang. We all know that the universe must have a beginning and that it's time is moving in a ray, but there was time before it because nothing, is active. That was the point.


I quoted several notable experts on the subject - time BEGAN at the big bang. There was no time, matter, or energy casually prior to the bigbang.

I have no idea what 'Nothing is active' means, but the vast majority of scientists agree there was no time casually prior to the bigbang.
P. C. W. Davies comments,

Quote:
An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.


As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,
Quote:
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."

Quote:
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.


Quote:
Isn't a vacuum just the absence of matter, and gas pressure? If so, I don't see how, before the Big bang that nothing isn't a vacuum :perplexed:


No, I thought my quotes made this very clear.

According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "
Quote:
by no means a simple empty space"
,[1] and again:
Quote:
"it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."

- Astrid Lambrecht and Chris Ray

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.

Quote:
My position is that, if the Big Bang was initiated by nothing and that nothing inn QM is something, then nothing existed before the Big bang, and that, that nothing was active, creating time.


"Nothingness" in QM is indeed something (Quantum Vacuum), but that something did not exist casually prior to the Bigbang.

Quote:
I mean infinite as in eternal, In the case you are referring to I am talking about his existence. IF time is eternal, and nothingness can create time, then nothingness always was. So if nothingness always was, it is infinite. In fact, already existent time is creating itself now. And there is hypothetical time being created as well. We know that the hypothetical time has passed because we are here, but God can't have been there because it hasn't happened yet. It has happened, and it hasn't happened. As illustrated in my diagram.


I have no idea how "nothingness" (whatever that is) can create time.

seems metaphysically absurd.
Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates,
Quote:
"If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius,"
namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls
Quote:
"a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin."


Quote:
But assuming that nothing doesn't create time at all, but a change in state does, God couldn't have created anything.
[from another post]
In addition, even if you didn't need time for something to exist, you need time for something to change state. The states are nonexistence to existence, So for a creator to create anything, she would need to create time first and foremost. But any attempt to create anything would be impossible unless time existed. If time existed without needing to be created, then whatever may have created anything else is not and cannot be the basic reason for everything.

---------- Post added 03-28-2010 at 06:44 PM ----------


Actually the effect of the universe coming into being could be simultaneous with the cause, it's called being "co-temperaneous"

You don't need time to create something if the effect is contemporaneous with the cause.

Hope this helps!
 
Krumple
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 08:05 pm
@wayne,
wayne;145145 wrote:
Just because "you" don't see the evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.
Not all Indians are good trackers.


Calling a rock a dog, doesn't make the rock a dog. Show me the evidence.
 
richard mcnair
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 09:31 pm
@spiltteeth,
In another thread I told you a fact that you were obviously ignorant of - the fact that all religious thought presupposes some sort of idealism. You responded by saying, something like religions need to claim that otherwise they would be proved wrong. Well this may hold if religions were only invented in the last few centuries, but why would they maintain such a thing thousands of years ago in very much pre-scientific eras? The hindu text the rig veda is to my knowledge the single oldest religious scripture known to man, it was composed around 1700-1200 BC, and clearly holds this position. The sanskrit word for the physical world is 'maya' - illusion. Surely if they were just all uncultured savages they would have maintained something very physical and tangible, not something very counter-intuitive like that? Also given the fact that so many of the very greatest ever philosophers have concurred which such a view on the nature of reality, and the external world...:

YouTube - plato - The cave

Transcendental idealism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

perhaps we should at least have to argue that you should not perhaps be so dismissive of the idea that there may be some truth to the religions. The fact that militant religion attackers like yourself don't even grasp the difference between materialism, and religious idealism, and so argue on materialist assumptions, thus rendering 99% of the arguments ever uttered by them (and 100% of yours on this forum), is quite frankly hilarious.

I notice you keep referring to god as 'she'. This is of course a typically juvenile sort of thing typical of so many atheists. It is something simply designed to provoke, and on the internet there is a technical name for someone who indulges in such behaviour - Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . But if I can pick through the childishness, I think a point you have in mind is to draw the attention to God being thought of as male, which you think highlights an absurdity of the idea. Unfortunately if you were to educate yourself on the subject before opening your mouth, you would perhaps have realised that that religions don't actually hold god to be male ( Gender of God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Gender of God in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) referring to God as 'he' is just a convention, albeit a patriarchal one.

Now albeit that the idea that you actually have a grasp of the facts has been the thing disproven, let me even address the argument on the assumption that people who believe in God also have a materialist worldview (which no-one does). Still I'm afraid you can't disprove God. Any argument used to do so must rely on inductive reasoning which is inherently fallible. You could only disprove a materialist god if you had been around since the beginning of the universe, or had managed to survey the entire universe at once etc. You cannot personally even disprove the idea that the stars are just little dots of light just a few miles outside the earth's atmosphere, or that the sun spins round the earth (unless you have a space rocket and we can go up and look for ourselves). You don't know that the laws of nature don't suddenly break down a few hundred miles from the earth. You might say what about the moon landings, rockets into space etc, but how can you PROVE it wasn't all just a hoax to try to trick people? How can you disprove that the laws of nature aren't just a trick played by the devil to appear consistent to trick you? Any inductive reasoning is by it's nature fallible, and so you can never 100% disprove anything with it. Fortunately barely anyone who believes in God is a materialist as well, so that's the end of that then.

The greatest wisdom lies in appreciating how little one actually knows - I think it was Socrates who said something similar... now what's the opposite of being wise... ah yes being a fool. One of the greatest evils of science is giving people the illusion that they know far more than they do.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 09:46 pm
@richard mcnair,
richard_mcnair;145395 wrote:
One of the greatest evils of science is giving people the illusion that they know far more than they do.
That sounds okay, if the value of religions is to demonstrate that the believer is ignorant. But other than pointing to ignorance, what is gained? Being ignorant doesn't imply that there're gods, does it?
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 10:35 pm
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;145397 wrote:
That sounds okay, if the value of religions is to demonstrate that the believer is ignorant. But other than pointing to ignorance, what is gained? Being ignorant doesn't imply that there're gods, does it?

:sarcastic:
Not. But the ignorant fact does imply that there Are Godesses

Lost rest of my argument due to Krumple compUter


Believing is nice, but I needed prove. I got it, Job would shiver.

PepI
AMS:bigsmile:

Laughing
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 11:03 pm
@spiltteeth,
spiltteeth;145354 wrote:
No, it has to do what you mean by 'Omnipotence.' As I say, except for Decarte God has always been defined as not being able to do the logically impossible, even way back in Aristotle's time.
It's pretty much been an official staple at least since 1100 ad with Anselm defined his belief in the existence of God using the phrase "that than which nothing greater can be conceived"
But even BEFORE then, "omnipotent" is never used in the Bible,
the Bible never claims that God can do all things.
In fact, the Bible makes a point that there are things that God cannot do. The Bible says that God cannot commit sin. God cannot lie.
Therefore, biblical omnipotence does not mean that God can do all things. God cannot do anything that is contrary to His holy character.
However, God can do anything that He determines to do. This is a true meaning of omnipotence - the ability to do anything that one sets out to do.

Thats been understood for thousands of yrs. In fact, except for Decarte, its been the ATHEIST's whose been trying to define omnipotence to include the ability to do things that are, by definition, impossible.

I have no idea where you looked up the word but just look at wikipedia, it's clear : Omnipotence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really have no idea what 'nothingness' is - sounds like some sort of metaphysical construct.
But pure nothingness "precedes" all being, as birth precedes life. Absolute nothingness has no properties at all and therefore no potentialities. It is devoid of possibilities, as it is of everything else (which is why something can't come into being from nothing).

I quoted several notable experts on the subject - time BEGAN at the big bang. There was no time, matter, or energy casually prior to the bigbang.

I have no idea what 'Nothing is active' means, but the vast majority of scientists agree there was no time casually prior to the bigbang.
P. C. W. Davies comments,
As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,

No, I thought my quotes made this very clear.
According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is ",[1] and again:
- Astrid Lambrecht and Chris Ray

According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence.



"Nothingness" in QM is indeed something (Quantum Vacuum), but that something did not exist casually prior to the Bigbang.



I have no idea how "nothingness" (whatever that is) can create time.

seems metaphysically absurd.
Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls
Actually the effect of the universe coming into being could be simultaneous with the cause, it's called being "co-temperaneous"
You don't need time to create something if the effect is contemporaneous with the cause.
Hope this helps!


Thank you!
I asked what the difference between 'nothing' and 'nothingness' is, because of this statement:
"I think yr confusing 'nothingness' with 'nothing' - the universe did NOT come from nothingness, but from nothing at all."

I didn't know what you meant. :/

I cover your omnipotence question and your time answer in my blog, which is now up.

Also, did you watch the first video?
Perhaps I am interpreting it incorrectly, but krauss stated ". . . What's so beautiful about a universe with a total energy of zero? Well, only such a universe can begin from nothing."

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

What I am saying is that "nothing" in and of itself creates time, purely because time is defined by change. We don't regard this as time because it is useless to us. We don't have any events to compare it to, and we can't measure infinity so it is not important to chart it as the "beginning" of time.

Is there something I am missing here? :perplexed:

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 01:28 AM ----------

richard_mcnair;145099 wrote:
In another thread I told you a fact that you were obviously ignorant of - the fact that all religious thought presupposes some sort of idealism. You responded by saying, something like religions need to claim that otherwise they would be proved wrong. Well this may hold if religions were only invented in the last few centuries, but why would they maintain such a thing thousands of years ago in very much pre-scientific eras? The hindu text the rig veda is to my knowledge the single oldest religious scripture known to man, it was composed around 1700-1200 BC, and clearly holds this position. The sanskrit word for the physical world is 'maya' - illusion. Surely if they were just all uncultured savages they would have maintained something very physical and tangible, not something very counter-intuitive like that? Also given the fact that so many of the very greatest ever philosophers have concurred which such a view on the nature of reality, and the external world...:


I understand that, but I also assumed that this being or god could not be detected and must exist in another realm. I tried to place God outside of our scope of understanding. I actually think that GOD is existence itself, but my personal beliefs do not matter in this thread.

I don't think any position on God could disprove the stance of Transcendental Idealism, but I would rather we believed that God is not understandable so that we could stop killing in the name of what he/she wants or doesn't want. All of its books would be no where near what we could imagine him/her/it to be so these useless squabbles over texts would be considered obsolete. There would be no fundamentalism. I am going to read into Transcendental Idealism and The World as Will and Representation, but in an attempt to not keep you waiting I will end on that note and message you my thoughts.


richard_mcnair;145099 wrote:
Transcendental idealism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The World as Will and Representation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

perhaps we should at least have to argue that you should not perhaps be so dismissive of the idea that there may be some truth to the religions. The fact that militant religion attackers like yourself don't even grasp the difference between materialism, and religious idealism, and so argue on materialist assumptions, thus rendering 99% of the arguments ever uttered by them (and 100% of yours on this forum), is quite frankly hilarious.


I am not. I do have problems with books that are obviously corrupted and claim to know all things, but that doesn't mean I am immune to believing them or at least their basic principles. I know that I am not disproving god, because the would disprove my own notion, but the purpose is to get rid of this, "god is an angry being whose sole purpose is to make you do his will and kill in the name of him/her/it. I don't want for god to be understandable or for god's "word" to be interpreted, because then we just get dogma and violently conflicting views. If god isn't understandable, there would be no need for this foolishness and we could begin to advance, and to contemplate science seriously.

richard_mcnair;145099 wrote:
I notice you keep referring to god as 'she'. This is of course a typically juvenile sort of thing typical of so many atheists. It is something simply designed to provoke, and on the Internet there is a technical name for someone who indulges in such behavior - Troll (Internet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . But if I can pick through the childishness, I think a point you have in mind is to draw the attention to God being thought of as male, which you think highlights an absurdity of the idea. Unfortunately if you were to educate yourself on the subject before opening your mouth, you would perhaps have realised that that religions don't actually hold god to be male ( Gender of God in Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Gender of God in Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) referring to God as 'he' is just a convention, albeit a patriarchal one.


I mean no disrespect on the beliefs of anyone. I don't consider god to be of any gender, as gender doesn't apply to her, but I always refer to abstract and incomprehensible beings as female (because I don't understand females). This thread was not intended to be specific to the Christian deity, but I didn't know where to put the thread. :/ That was my fault and I apologize for the confusion.

richard_mcnair;145099 wrote:
Now albeit that the idea that you actually have a grasp of the facts has been the thing disproved, let me even address the argument on the assumption that people who believe in God also have a materialist worldview (which no-one does). Still I'm afraid you can't disprove God. Any argument used to do so must rely on inductive reasoning which is inherently fallible. You could only disprove a materialist god if you had been around since the beginning of the universe, or had managed to survey the entire universe at once etc. You cannot personally even disprove the idea that the stars are just little dots of light just a few miles outside the earth's atmosphere, or that the sun spins round the earth (unless you have a space rocket and we can go up and look for ourselves). You don't know that the laws of nature don't suddenly break down a few hundred miles from the earth. You might say what about the moon landings, rockets into space etc, but how can you PROVE it wasn't all just a hoax to try to trick people? How can you disprove that the laws of nature aren't just a trick played by the devil to appear consistent to trick you? Any inductive reasoning is by it's nature fallible, and so you can never 100% disprove anything with it. Fortunately barely anyone who believes in God is a materialist as well, so that's the end of that then.


I guess my first comments apply here.
 
spiltteeth
 
Reply Sun 28 Mar, 2010 11:52 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;145423 wrote:
Thank you!
I asked what the difference between 'nothing' and 'nothingness' is, because of this statement:
"I think yr confusing 'nothingness' with 'nothing' - the universe did NOT come from nothingness, but from nothing at all."

I didn't know what you meant. :/

I cover your omnipotence question and your time answer in my blog, which is now up.

Also, did you watch the first video?
Perhaps I am interpreting it incorrectly, but krauss stated ". . . What's so beautiful about a universe with a total energy of zero? Well, only such a universe can begin from nothing."

ASP: A Universe from Nothing

What I am saying is that "nothing" in and of itself creates time, purely because time is defined by change. We don't regard this as time because it is useless to us. We don't have any events to compare it to, and we can't measure infinity so it is not important to chart it as the "beginning" of time.

Is there something I am missing here? :perplexed:


Thanks for the article! The authors say their theory is "admittedly speculative' which is true since it contradicts all known physics, as I hope my quotes have shown.
There's no reason to believe there was a quantum vacuum casually prior to the bigbang, in fact, known physics makes this impossible.
This is probably why that short paper had no science in it.

I think I've shown that virtual particles etc do not pop out from nothing, but are material converted from a quantum vacuum (which as all known physics tells us, did not exist casually prior to the bigbang.)

I guess I'm a bit dense, because the bigbang theory clearly posits a beginning to time (T=0, T=1, T=2 etc) And as Hawking says, pretty much every physicist believes time had a beginning at the big bang.

classical Big Bang model features a time interval which is closed at the Big Bang instant t=0 such that t=0 was a singular, temporally first event of physical space-time

The universe is about 13.7 billion yrs old.

I've quoted just about every authority I can think of.

Unless your using the term "time" in a way physicists don't, it seems pretty indisputable.
I don't see how time could cause energy and matter anyway.

According to the law of thermodynamics the universe does indeed have a net energy of zero, since energy is neither created nor destroyed - its in perfect balance.
I don't see the connection between this and something coming from nothing.

The laws of thermodynamics clearly state something cannot come from nothing.

But just intuitively it seems absurd that something can come from nothing.

I mean, the premiss out of nothing nothing comes is so obvious that even Hume accepted it without argument, regarding its denial as an instance of unlivable Pyrrhonic skepticism.

Probably I'M missing something! I'll check out yr blog though, thanks.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:05 am
@spiltteeth,
[CENTER]:perplexed:
The bigger Gods U pray too, the smaller men we are.

i strive 4 Humanity
analyze um !

Think Free; Mind Humanity:lol:
[/CENTER]
 
pondfish
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:38 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Author of this thread is an IDIOT. So is all humans existed or going to be existed.

Humans and IDIOTS are synonymous.

You can't prove speculation in either way.

Words only lie.

OP has lots of energy but he fails to ask right question.

It is not about proving (agree) or disproving (disagree)...

It is about your mind. Is it clear?. Is it over cooked?.

GOD is a belief , you can't prove either way. It will continue to exist on people who wants them. It will not exist in people who do not wants them.

Our thoughts exist for a microsecond....it may not exist next second...

All these are useless waste of time..masturbating with beliefs.

Quit it humans.Smile
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 02:52 am
@pondfish,
pondfish;145479 wrote:
Author of this thread is an IDIOT. So is all humans existed or going to be existed.

Humans and IDIOTS are synonymous.

You can't prove speculation in either way.

Words only lie.

OP has lots of energy but he fails to ask right question.

It is not about proving (agree) or disproving (disagree)...

It is about your mind. Is it clear?. Is it over cooked?.

GOD is a belief , you can't prove either way. It will continue to exist on people who wants them. It will not exist in people who do not wants them.

Our thoughts exist for a microsecond....it may not exist next second...

All these are useless waste of time..masturbating with beliefs.

Quit it humans.Smile



Do U Think GOD is a NEUTER ? i.c. Impotant:lol:
 
ikurwa89
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 04:01 am
@pondfish,
pondfish;145479 wrote:
Author of this thread is an IDIOT. So is all humans existed or going to be existed.

Humans and IDIOTS are synonymous.

You can't prove speculation in either way.

Words only lie.

OP has lots of energy but he fails to ask right question.

It is not about proving (agree) or disproving (disagree)...

It is about your mind. Is it clear?. Is it over cooked?.

GOD is a belief , you can't prove either way. It will continue to exist on people who wants them. It will not exist in people who do not wants them.

Our thoughts exist for a microsecond....it may not exist next second...

All these are useless waste of time..masturbating with beliefs.

Quit it humans.Smile


Imagine, while you were sleeping and then someone came and kidnapped you and put you on this island?

What kind of questions will run through your head? You are a curious animal, you like to seek answers to things.

I bet one of your questions would be "who put him here", "why am I here" etc... These topics tend to attract intellectual people, I can see from your post, that these sort of discussions tend to damage you more than educate you.

So why don't you go about your day, believing in fairytales and stories made up while some of us who actually are keen and motivated to seek truth.

If everybody thought like you, we would still be living in caves eating God knows what for breakfast!
 
pondfish
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 09:43 am
@ikurwa89,
May be it is reverse thinking.

Things are clear...it is obvious. Humans always do not want to look what is infront of you.

It is easier to imagine and live in an illusion.

Ask questions , it will clear your mind. That is the only way.Smile
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 09:51 am
@pondfish,
[CENTER]:bigsmile:
[/CENTER]
i Believe God would cheer Y P reading this thread .!

Pepijn Sweep
Magister
yk
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 10:39 am
@Theologikos,
That what be written to Bibles can:
1. Authentically
2. Doubtfully.
3. Lu-was authentically.
If there is someone who has created the Universe it doesn't mean yet that the bible or the Koran or other sacred texts tell about him all truth. That that God is perfect, ideal, omnipotent, these are conjectures of theologians and rabbis. If we take the Bible as source of knowledge of God we should choose only phrases of God. Only that God spoke. God is unknown force of the Universe. It - not conjectures of seminary students. God can be whom and everything. It can appear essence from other measurement or galaxy. He could lie to us. He could create our race for what.

Before to argue on this theme it is necessary to define, who for us God? Until then while we are in captivity at scholasticism, we talk about God as about racial archetype (Charles Jung) or cultural phenomenon. If we reflect on Unknown God we can make many opening.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 11:48 AM ----------

God spoke very often with Jews to the Gain of Israel Romans. God doesn't hide from people. For people having rummaged in contact on 2000 it is very big term. But for God this small time. People as whimsical children - they can't on be left one long. God never broke free will of people. It could exterminate people (Jesus Navin or Judaic War) but never used totalitarian washing of brains. God informed often ancient Jews the future - that happens with them if they don't make that He asks (God). But Jews very seldom could change the future. For this purpose they didn't have not enough Force or Will or Conditions.
 
Theologikos
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 12:08 pm
@spiltteeth,
spiltteeth;145448 wrote:
I think I've shown that virtual particles etc do not pop out from nothing, but are material converted from a quantum vacuum (which as all known physics tells us, did not exist casually prior to the bigbang.)


Okay, thank you for responding. Naturally, you know much more about physics than I do, so I'm hoping to learn from you.

From my limited understanding, a perfect vacuum is devoid of all matter. But there can never be a perfect vacuum because of quantum mechanics. Right? (probably wrong) In other words there can never be a complete void. But if we were to go into a very remote place is space and section off an area of nothingness, we could observe quantum fluctuations. Before there was matter and gravity and before the big bang, I don't understand how, there are not quantum fluctuations occuring. :perplexed:

Krauss also said that the empty space between protons accounts for 90% of the mass of that proton. Which means that, that empty space is active. Is the empty space in our protons inside of a vacuum of its own? I don't know where a vacuum comes into play here.

This is probably all wrong, so what separates a quantum vacuum from a near vacuum and what conditions are neccesary for this conversion to take place? (how does it happen?) And how do we know that a quantum vacuum, couldn't have existed before the big bang?


spiltteeth;145448 wrote:
I guess I'm a bit dense, because the bigbang theory clearly posits a beginning to time (T=0, T=1, T=2 etc) And as Hawking says, pretty much every physicist believes time had a beginning at the big bang.

classical Big Bang model features a time interval which is closed at the Big Bang instant t=0 such that t=0 was a singular, temporally first event of physical space-time


Understood. I was just saying that if nothing was possibly active before the big bang, which is what the video seems to denote, and actions create time, then time must've been infinite. But we don't really care if time is infite before the big bang, because for our purposes, the time before the big bang is irrelavent. We wouldn't have anything at all to measure its change with, so going before the big bang is pointless.


spiltteeth;145448 wrote:
Unless your using the term "time" in a way physicists don't, it seems pretty indisputable.
I don't see how time could cause energy and matter anyway.


I am saying that energy, creates time because energy is movement. :/ Of course this is null if 'nothing' was not moving or even active proir to the big bang. I other words, if everything was frozen in place (everything, even observers) time would have no events to go against; there would be no logical progression so time would've stoped.

spiltteeth;145448 wrote:
According to the law of thermodynamics the universe does indeed have a net energy of zero, since energy is neither created nor destroyed - its in perfect balance.
I don't see the connection between this and something coming from nothing.


Well, only a universe with a total energy of zero can be produced from nothing. And only in a flat universe, can the universe have no energy before it. So they measured the curvature of the universe to determine if it was flat, and it was.


spiltteeth;145448 wrote:
The laws of thermodynamics clearly state something cannot come from nothing. But just intuitively it seems absurd that something can come from nothing.
I mean, the premiss out of nothing nothing comes is so obvious that even Hume accepted it without argument, regarding its denial as an instance of unlivable Pyrrhonic skepticism.


Do the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems? Because according to the video, the universe it open.


I am probably messing up somewhere so I was wondering if you could watch the video from 4:43 to 43:30
and tell me why what he is saying is incorrect. Please watch the video before your response because there is obviously something I am missing.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to teach me, and I really hope I can learn from you. Smile
 
spiltteeth
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 03:34 pm
@Theologikos,
Theologikos;145663 wrote:
Okay, thank you for responding. Naturally, you know much more about physics than I do, so I'm hoping to learn from you.

From my limited understanding, a perfect vacuum is devoid of all matter. But there can never be a perfect vacuum because of quantum mechanics. Right? (probably wrong) In other words there can never be a complete void. But if we were to go into a very remote place is space and section off an area of nothingness, we could observe quantum fluctuations. Before there was matter and gravity and before the big bang, I don't understand how, there are not quantum fluctuations occuring. :perplexed:

Krauss also said that the empty space between protons accounts for 90% of the mass of that proton. Which means that, that empty space is active. Is the empty space in our protons inside of a vacuum of its own? I don't know where a vacuum comes into play here.

This is probably all wrong, so what separates a quantum vacuum from a near vacuum and what conditions are neccesary for this conversion to take place? (how does it happen?) And how do we know that a quantum vacuum, couldn't have existed before the big bang?




Understood. I was just saying that if nothing was possibly active before the big bang, which is what the video seems to denote, and actions create time, then time must've been infinite. But we don't really care if time is infite before the big bang, because for our purposes, the time before the big bang is irrelavent. We wouldn't have anything at all to measure its change with, so going before the big bang is pointless.




I am saying that energy, creates time because energy is movement. :/ Of course this is null if 'nothing' was not moving or even active proir to the big bang. I other words, if everything was frozen in place (everything, even observers) time would have no events to go against; there would be no logical progression so time would've stoped.



Well, only a universe with a total energy of zero can be produced from nothing. And only in a flat universe, can the universe have no energy before it. So they measured the curvature of the universe to determine if it was flat, and it was.




Do the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems? Because according to the video, the universe it open.


I am probably messing up somewhere so I was wondering if you could watch the video from 4:43 to 43:30
and tell me why what he is saying is incorrect. Please watch the video before your response because there is obviously something I am missing.

Once again, thank you for taking the time to teach me, and I really hope I can learn from you. Smile


Well I still really don't see how something can come from nothing.

Even the great skeptic David Hume admitted that he never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something might come into existence without a cause.

Really I don't think it's even intelligible. What can be meant, for example, by the claim that there is a mathematical probability that nothingness should spawn a region of spacetime "where none existed before?"
It cannot mean that given enough time a region of spacetime would pop into existence at a certain place, since neither place nor time exist apart from spacetime. The notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing thus seems incoherent.

. A pure potentiality cannot actualize itself. In the case of the universe (including any boundary points), there was not anything physically prior to the initial singularity.4 The potentiality for the existence of the universe could not therefore have lain in itself, since it did not exist prior to the singularity.

Quantum vacuums have no physical particles but are filled with electromagnetic waves.

However, there was NO vacuum casually prior to the bigbang, there was nothing.

the expansion cannot even be visualized from the outside -there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang

Four of the world's most prominent astronomers described that event in these words:

Quote:
The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.


As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,
Quote:
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity,


I really don't have an hour to watch the vid, I have heard of Lawrence Krauss. He himself, as far as I know, has only had one peer reveiwed paper publiahed which I've not read, but he's constantly cited - usually the author will say "and some Physistics get VERY desperate - see Lawerence Krauss"

Anyway, according to the Bigbang the universe is a closed system but Krauss may be referring to Quantum gravity theory, which defines things differently. So far there is no coherent quantum gravity theory BUT if there is one day it could explain alot.

It;s a theory by Davies. Davies presents a scenario which, he confesses, "
Quote:
should not be taken too seriously,"


He has reference to a quantum theory of gravity according to which spacetime itself could spring uncaused into being out of absolutely nothing.

While admitting that there is
Quote:
"still no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity,"
such a theory
Quote:
"would allow spacetime to be created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused in the same way that particles are created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused. The theory would entail a certain mathematically determined probability that, for instance, a blob of space would appear where none existed before. Thus, spacetime could pop out of nothingness as the result of a causeless quantum transition."


However this is misleading. As Davies admits,
Quote:
"The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre- existing energy into material form."


But quantum gravity is so poorly understood that the period prior to 10[-43] sec, which this theory hopes to describe

In fact, there seems to be no good reason to think that such a theory would involve the sort of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo which Davies suggests.

But there seems to be nothing in this which suggests the possibility of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo.

IF originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits?

Davies on one occasion seems to answer as if the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being:
Quote:
"But what of the laws? They have to be 'there' to start with so that the universe can come into being. Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense) so that a quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first place."


Your into philosophy so you probably know more then I but to me this seems exceedingly peculiar.
Davies seems to attribute to the laws of nature themselves a sort of ontological and causal status such that they constrain spontaneous becoming.
But the laws of physics do not themselves cause or constrain anything; they are simply propositional descriptions of a certain form and generality of what does happen in the universe.

It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being!

Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed; if not, then it would seem ontologically impossible that being should arise out of absolute non-being.
To call such spontaneous springing into being out of non-being a "quantum transition" or to attribute it to "quantum gravity" explains nothing; indeed, on this account, there is no explanation. It just happens.

Hope this helps! Smile
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 06:21:11