Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1388 of 1482 (845434)
12-15-2018 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1383 by ICANT
12-15-2018 2:31 PM


Re: Creation
ringo are you just being deliberately obtuse concerning absolute truth not existing?
I don't believe he is, no.
The problem, ICANT, is this "absolute truth" verbiage.
In your world there may be such things but in science there can not be.
I concede that the Universe exists. I concede that the TV sitting in your room with you exists ... not as absolute truths but as scientific facts in which we have a very high degree of confidence. There is ample scientific evidence that both are real conglomerations of mass and energy.
But even though the degree of confidence in these facts is high and very strong there is a small possibility, vanishingly small to be sure, that, as ringo points out, these are illusions of the mind. The problem is that we cannot eliminate that possibility with absolute certainty. People have been known to hallucinate and there may alway be something we don't yet know that makes this whole universe an illusion.
Not very likely, but since the scenario cannot be totally eliminated with certainty science requires we keep the possibility open even as we accept that the conclusions we will operate on do not take this possibility into account. And the reason we can do that is because the preponderance of the facts are so strong vis-a-vis the small possibility of illusion for which there are very few facts we have a very high degree of confidence in the conclusions.
In the philosophy of science there is no such thing as absolute truth. There are only facts and reasonable assumptions with which we have varying degrees of confidence.
The universe exists. At one time, some 13.8 billion years ago the universe was of a size smaller than an atom. From that point the big bang happened. We know this as solid scientific fact. Copious evidence from observations of the universe and the workings of our two favorite physical theories which have been faithful to every test without fail, gives us a mighty strong confidence level of the efficacy of this fact.
How the universe got into this condensed condition, what happened prior to this condition, we do not know, yet. We have no facts, no theories, no reason to suppose anything, yet.
Note in the above analysis that the "illusion" scenario has at least some small very weak evidence to it. People hallucinate, are mislead by their own cognitive functions. There are some controversial speculations backed by some controversial math treatments within our two favorite theories that this whole thing may be but illusion. There is evidence, small and weak as it may be.
What there is no evidence for, none at all, is the speculation that some god popped the universe into existence or had anything at all to do with anything in this universe. There is no reason, even vanishingly small, to entertain the notion. No level of confidence need be assessed. It does not enter the picture in anyway. If some evidence is found, and verified, this may change. Until then, god is out.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1383 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2018 2:31 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1406 by ICANT, posted 12-16-2018 8:26 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1412 of 1482 (845543)
12-17-2018 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1406 by ICANT
12-16-2018 8:26 PM


Re: Creation
Sounds like you believe that statement to be an absolute truth.
No, ICANT, as I already said, we don't have absolute truths. Just various levels of confidence in our conclusions based on the efficacy and strength of the data.
And the statement I made enjoys an exceptionally high level of confidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1406 by ICANT, posted 12-16-2018 8:26 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1413 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2018 10:23 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 1415 by Phat, posted 12-17-2018 10:49 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1420 of 1482 (845585)
12-17-2018 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1413 by ICANT
12-17-2018 10:23 AM


Re: Creation
Could you present the objective, verifiable, evidence that high level of confidence is based upon?
Easy.
The total lack of any objective verifiable evidence in favor of your god proposal.The total lack of any objective verifiable evidence in favor of your god as absolute truth. The total lack of any objective verifiable evidence of any absolute truth. The total lack of any objective verifiable evidence in favor of any religious supernatural anything anywhere in this universe.
All pending any future observations, of course, as is the scientific way.
And since this species has been looking for millennia without any objective verifiable evidence having been found leads to a high confidence level that there may be none to be found.
All pending any future observations, of course, as is the scientific way.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1413 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2018 10:23 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1423 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2018 9:03 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1421 of 1482 (845590)
12-17-2018 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1415 by Phat
12-17-2018 10:49 AM


Re: Creation
Perhaps in ICANTs experience, being freely able to pray and meditate on the Bible gives him comfort.
I have no objection to anyone being wrong. And I have no objection to anyone rejecting my corrections and continuing to be wrong. That's life in a secular world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1415 by Phat, posted 12-17-2018 10:49 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1424 of 1482 (845624)
12-17-2018 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1423 by ICANT
12-17-2018 9:03 PM


Re: Creation
Did you not present any as you don't have any?
The evidence is there. You just cannot see it. You don't want to see it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1423 by ICANT, posted 12-17-2018 9:03 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1425 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2018 3:52 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1426 of 1482 (845630)
12-18-2018 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1425 by ICANT
12-18-2018 3:52 AM


Re: Creation
I won't play this silly game with you, ICANT. If you care to counter the evidence then please do.
Show us the evidence in favor of your god proposal. Show us the evidence of your god as an absolute truth. Show us the evidence in favor of there being any kind of absolute truth. Show us the evidence of any religious supernatural anything anywhere in this universe.
When there is no evidence for these things anywhere despite our having looked diligently for millennia then we can tentatively conclude, and with a great deal of confidence, that such things are not.
Show us otherwise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1425 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2018 3:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1427 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2018 11:52 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1430 of 1482 (845658)
12-18-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1427 by ICANT
12-18-2018 11:52 AM


Re: Creation
If the inference is that the singularity that existed at T=0, place the math breaks down and reveals no data is a black hole. Where did it come from? Where did it exist? If it began to exist, why?
Where did it come from? Nobody knows. Not me. Not you.
Where did it exist? Can't say it did until it manifested itself into this universe.
If it began to exist, why? Nobody knows. Not me. Not you.
All pending further observations, of course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1427 by ICANT, posted 12-18-2018 11:52 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1432 by ICANT, posted 12-19-2018 12:04 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1433 of 1482 (845729)
12-19-2018 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1432 by ICANT
12-19-2018 12:04 PM


Re: Creation
How do you observe something that is supposed to have happened 13.8 billion years in the past?
How do you observe the sun? You look at it. We now know the speed of light is finite and the sun is so far away that the light we see now left the surface of the sun some 8 minutes ago. So, given the strength of present technology, we can look out at the heavens and observe to the farthest reaches of our observable universe. And since these people aren't stupid, they have figured out that the light we gather in our instruments is shifted into lower frequencies by distance and expansion and we can identify light that left some distant galaxies 13.8 +- billion light-years out. That means 13.8 billion years ago.
From there we have super accurate math equations that allow us to "see" even further back than that. One of the things these equations tell us is that there was a time when the universe changed from opaque (light wasn't free to flow unhindered) to transparent and that this light, once it was free to fly across the universe, could still be seen but is frequency shifted from the gamma down into the microwave. Powerful equations if that prediction were found to be real.
Sure enough, we found it. And that light, which we can still gather and analyse, tells us what the universe is made of and its states of energy back 13.8 +- billion years ago. From there we can use those same equations, proven so accurate in so many ways so many times, to extrapolate what the universe most probably looked like even further back in time.
Many of those things that were written down 3800 years ago has been verified by modern science.
Yet you and others tell me that is not evidence.
It still isn't. We know how these stories get started, get embellished and get repeated. The fact that some of the stories contain some things we know, and have always known, to be true means nothing in the same way Huckleberry Finn can be seen to be true just because it adequately describes the Mississippi river.
The facts I gave about the universe, above, also come from multiple independent lines of inquiry all converging on the same conclusions. You have a tome of suspect myths without any outside independent corroborating lines of evidence. You have NO evidence. Period.
Paul can you fathom what non existence infers?
Doesn't matter what either you or I care to believe, comprehend, fathom or not. Reality is independent of our thoughts.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1432 by ICANT, posted 12-19-2018 12:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1434 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2018 12:10 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1435 of 1482 (845755)
12-20-2018 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1434 by ICANT
12-20-2018 12:10 AM


Re: Creation
You know those equations are super accurate because....
These people aren't stupid, Reverend, and they have tested the theories against all manner of lab and natural occurrences. These tests have been in the news for many decades, some even with wide popular appeal. If you can't name at least 2 then you haven't been paying attention and need to conduct additional research about the dozens more.
Einstein proved you can make figures say anything you want them to say.
No, he didn't prove it. He quipped it.
But it is right. You can make math do almost anything. That's why matching against observation and strong long-term (like decades) of peer-review are so important. The power, Reverend, is once you have a theory that models past observations accurately their predictive powers become more accurate as well. Having tested those predictive powers and found not one not-right (yet) we can confidently model systems where our present tech cannot show us if we are right or not (yet). We can probe the many mysteries still open to us, see what those models would result in and then find some way to test for those results or something completely different.
How long have we known that the life of the flesh is in the blood?
Since the first pre-proto-cave man watched his friend bleed out dead after being gored in a hunt. Maybe even before.
Enough with the pointed, and rather pointless, questions.
Didn't Einstein say "reality was an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."?
Apparently not.
When reality becomes a truth then you have a fact.
Reality is all facts everywhere through all time whether we have discovered them yet or not.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1434 by ICANT, posted 12-20-2018 12:10 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1437 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2018 3:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1440 of 1482 (845888)
12-21-2018 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1437 by ICANT
12-21-2018 3:45 PM


Re: Creation
I believe they are highly educated and have great book learning. I just do not believe they have common sense.
And with good reason. Common sense has been shown so often to be so very wrong.
Just what tests are you talking about be specific.
I'll give you one. Only one.
Here.
There are hundreds more for you to learn about if you really are interested in how we know these things. A course in physics at a local school might be helpful for you. I will not be giving you such a course here.
What theory does that?
General relativity, QED, QCD, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, Germ theory, Plate Tectonics ...
Lots of them.
One of the things science requires, yes REQUIRES, of a model in order to be considered a "Theory" is its ability to predict accurately. And peer review REQUIRES that there be no doubt that the theory made the prediction and that the resulting action was verified as correct multiple times before peer review is satisfied.
There are many web sites from schools and other places that have entire curricula in this stuff complete with the experiments and all their results just waiting for you to dive in.
But with over 50% of his blood gone over half the cells of his body was getting no energy, oxygen or removal of waste. Making it impossible for his body to combat his problems.
Ya, he bled to death just like poor Thag in my example. Even ignorant of the specifics of blood loss people a hundred thousand years ago could see that blood and life were connected.
That's one example of where common sense was not wrong.
So what?
So Moses recorded a scientific fact 2800 years before it was discovered. How did he have that knowledge then to be able to write it down? Nobody had that knowledge at that time but somebody that knew had to tell him.
No. He probably knew, like most everyone else (they may have been ignorant but they were not stupid), that when a human or an animal bled too much it died. Can't help but notice that when you live on this planet.
Such knowledge at that time doesn't give any special status, let alone spiritual or supernatural insight, to the myths of the bible.
Nobody had that knowledge at that time but somebody that knew had to tell him.
BS
I can agree that all facts whether known or unknown is what makes up reality.
I know God exists but many here don't.
When the death angel comes and claims them reality will set in and the fact that God does exist will be discovered by them.
So goes the mantra. The article of faith. The belief without evidence, without reason, without reality.
BTW, if we don't talk again before hand, Merry Christmas, ICANT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1437 by ICANT, posted 12-21-2018 3:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1443 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2018 2:14 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1446 of 1482 (845983)
12-24-2018 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1443 by ICANT
12-24-2018 2:14 AM


Re: Creation
Common sense has been shown so often to be so very wrong.
Are you sure common sense has been shown to be wrong?
Not always but quite often, yes.
And "common sense" is subjective (the Earth looks flat to me). Not good for building a model of reality.
I saw several utube video's but I saw no actual proof of anything.
Proof? Who said anything about proof?
Reading comprehension, ICANT.
None of them tell me where the universe came from.
... yet.
None of them tell me why it exists.
Why the universe exists? You mean as in purpose?
"Purpose" is a human construct, an illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.
None of them can tell me when it began to exist.
... yet.
None of them can tell me where I came from.
You have to look, ICANT.
BBT, Nucleosynthesis, Genetics, Evolution all have a say in answering that one.
None of them can tell me why I exist.
Purpose, again.
"Purpose" is a human illusion, ICANT. There is no purpose.
None of them can tell me where the first life form came from.
...yet.
They can describe some things that exist and how they function.
And many of our theories do that exceptionally well. That is all we ask of them.
One of the things science requires, yes REQUIRES, of a model in order to be considered a "Theory" is its ability to predict accurately.
Is the BBT a theory?
Yes. Though we know it is not complete.
Is string theory a theory?
No. It is a hypothetical model.
Is the bounce theory a theory?
No. It is a hypothetical model.
Is inflation a theory?
Yes. Though we know it is not complete.
Expansion is not a theory it is a fact. The universe is getting larger.
You got one right. And the hypothesis as to why/how (not purpose but operation) is dark energy. Super strong evidence that an unseen energy exists, not so strong on the actual mechanisms involved.
AZPaul writes:
No. He probably knew, like most everyone else (they may have been ignorant but they were not stupid), that when a human or an animal bled too much it died. Can't help but notice that when you live on this planet.
ICANT writes:
He said the life of the flesh was in the blood.
Did he? Is that the actual translation from the original?
Or was it something like "You bleed too hard you get dead."?
Can you show that he even was, let alone what he may/may not have said?
I don't see how he could have know that as the circulation system of the blood was not discovered until the 1600's.
He didn't. All he knew, and all your quote of him shows, is that he knew if you bleed too hard you get dead.
But he did write it down at least 2400 years before it was discovered.
No, he didn't. This smacks of desperate reaching for something "sciency" to defend the indefensible.
When it comes to evidence I have more for what I believe than you do for what you believe.
This forum is full of such religious proclamations, yet, no evidence is ever presented.
But if I explained it to you, you would not be able to understand it so I won't even try.
I suspect that is because you have nothing to present except smoke and mirrors.
The problem ICANT is that the smoke was blown away centuries ago to reveal that the mirror has always been broken.
I will just pray for you.
Ultimately unproductive but I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1443 by ICANT, posted 12-24-2018 2:14 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1456 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 3:34 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1472 of 1482 (846124)
12-29-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1456 by ICANT
12-26-2018 3:34 PM


Re: Creation
Now as far as subjective, everything is subjective.
No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts. Reality as perceived by our senses assuming properly calibrated senses, calibrated by like observations by other sets of senses. I reject the brain-in-a-box solipsist bull.
There is an objective reality and we can perceive it.
Everything you have ever been taught about creation is subject to the original assumptions being fact.
The only "creation" anything I have ever heard are the various religious creation myths none of which are consistent and many of which defy what we know of the universe not just defying logic and ethics.
Despite what religious people like to expound there is no scientific creation theory ... yet.
No, not the big bang. No, not abiogenesis. No, not evolution.
The big bang gets us close to the birth of the universe but stops us just short of the event itself, abiogenesis is still fragmented among several viable hypothesis and evolution does not address creation at all.
What else is an experiment supposed to produce. It either proves or disproves the premise.
We're having a discussion in a science forum, reverend. You gotta get your science hat on.
What experiments produce is evidence, not proof. They certainly can disprove a specific premise but they can never prove one. They can only increase our level of confidence in a premise being true/real/actual. They can never actually show a premise to be true/real/actual.
It's a philosophy thing.
AZPaul writes:
The power, Reverend, is once you have a theory that models past observations accurately their predictive powers become more accurate as well.
What theory does that?
General relativity, QED, QCD, Quantum Field Theory, Evolution, Germ theory, Plate Tectonics ...
Lots of them.
None of them tell me where the universe came from.
... yet.
Nor will they ever.
You might be right, just like they can't tell us how stars work and where all the elements come from or how time slows at really fast speeds and ...
Oh! Wait! They do tell us these things.
Well, they didn't use to, so what are they going to tell us next?
We're going to have to wait and find out what any new theories have to tell us.
The universe can not have existed eternally in the past due to entropy.
We don't know that ... yet. We have no idea what attributes, physics, laws operate(d) prior to, before, outside of, right next to, or anything beyond this present universe we inhabit.
I think we may have finally overcome this "there is no before or outside or other then this universe" bs. I think we have finally accepted that we are totally ignorant of any such things and cannot truthfully say anything about such matters existing or not. There are no stops. All is open to our inquiry.
Since nothing exists outside the universe according to the standard theory that requires the universe having a beginning to exist from non-existence.
That is sooo last season, ICANT. You need to update.
We cannot say if there is or is not anything prior/outside this universe because we have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.
It's a pleasant dream right now but maybe, someday in the next 500 years +- we may have a comprehensive theory of quantum gravity that may, fingers crossed, allow us to pierce those non-existent singularities everyone is so upset over.
Therefore a "WHY" is necessary.
No, as a matter of fact, it isn't.
The "why" you are asking is just a human construct subject to the same subjective emotional baggage as all such constructs in this kind of discussion, i.e. useless.
You left out the most important one "BIOGENESIS".
That's "abiogenesis", with the "a", but I understand what you are getting at.
No, I didn't leave it out. I totally forgot about it. There is a difference.
Humans did not exist. Now humans exist. My question is why do they exist which requires a purpose.
No, it doesn't. We exist because we evolved. There is no purpose to evolution. It didn't require one before the sun turned on and it doesn't require one now.
And they will never tell me where life came from.
You may be right about that. I don't think an acceptable theory of abiogenesis will come about in our lifetimes. Like fusion power and peace in the middle east we'll be long gone before that happens.
The standard theory is the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category.
I have been trying to get supporting evidence for that conclusion since the 1st post in this thread and in other threads.
I am confused. There are a lot of scientific theories out there, not just the Standard Model. The standard model deals with particles and forces. The "stuff and glue" that make up the universe. There are also Special Relativity, General Relativity, the Quantum Field Theories QED and QCD, that have more to do with how all this stuff and glue operate.
Why would you say the Standard Model was the only hypothesis that has reached the theory category? All above are actual, bona fide, accepted theories in the true science meaning of that word.
Supporting evidence for what conclusions? That our theories actually work?
Would you care to present any evidence or just continue to tell me the "theories do that exceptionally well". That statement is an assertion not evidence.
I told you before I would present you one piece of evidence, only one, and that I wasn't about to try to give you a semester's worth of college physics through this forum. I did that.
So, no, I would not care to present any more evidence. You're on your own.
If it is not complete it should not be classified as a theory but as a hypothesis.
I guess ignorance of science tails with ignorance of scientific terminology.
I think I'll just let that one stand there and simmer a bit.
When did it reach a consensus?
One of our most outstanding cosmologist of the present Sir Roger Penrose calls "cosmic inflation a fantasy.
Do you know something that he does not? If you do present it.
Dr. Penrose does not a consensus break.
Remember Dr. Fred Hoyle? He didn't brake a consensus either.
At least you said string theory, and bounce theory were just a hypothetical model.
Which means it is something that is based on a guess.
It doesn't mean that at all, Reverend.
It means the model is not yet complete enough to be testable with our present technology. It is still hypothesis, not just a guess. If you cannot discern a difference I cannot help you there.
Dark matter and Dark energy are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. That assumption is all the evidence you have for their existence.
Not quite right.
We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe. They just don't rotate right. There appears to be more gravity (mass) than we can see. We know it's there because of the gravitational effect but, unlike other matter showing gravitational effects we cannot see the stuff and don't know what it is. So, for right now, we call it "dark".
Good name for something you know is there but can't see.
Same with dark energy. We see its effects all across the visible universe but we don't yet know what it is.
And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.
You say gravity holds the universe together and since there is not enough matter and energy in the universe to accomplish that feat science invented dark matter, and dark energy.
Where do you get all this wrong stuff?
The Bible says God holds, or binds it together. There is just as much evidence to support this hypothesis as for dark matter and dark energy.
Laugh.
Why do you say "no he didn't". I have photo copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls which is 2200 hundred years old and they used the same two Hebrew words I explained above. According to science those original scrolls are a little over 2200 years old.
The people who lived 400 years after Moses lived had scrolls with the same text written on them.
And you know these fragments are right how?
Or did everyone at the time have specialty degrees in hematology?
No, ICANT, Moses, if he even existed at all, may have said some words, maybe even those very words you used (though given the state of the sources I would doubt that) but that does not in any way translate into Moses demonstrating some deep knowledge of hematology in the way you suggest.
All he knew was if you bleed too hard you get dead. Show me where he acknowledged anything more than that. So far, the quote you are using does not realistically indicate that.
Everything I would tell you, you would probably classify as coincidence. But with such a preponderance of coincidences in my life the evidence is overwhelming to me that God does exist.
Well, I can't argue that. You're probably right, again.
People all over this world find all manner of gods in the coincidences of their little lives. I cannot remember how many times I've heard that the coincidence of finding ones car keys in a dark field was proof of some god or other involved in our little lives trying to help.
Leave the damn keys in the damn field. Get rid of cancer instead.
When you die and you will, you will stand before God and be judged by what you have done with the opportunities you had on earth to trust Him for eternal life. You will not have an excuse when you stand before Him.
When you and I both die, and we will, our energies will be diffused back into the global environment and our bodies will break down into their constituent molecules and atoms to be used in other systems living and otherwise. Nothing will remain of us here or anywhere except in memories and after a few hundred years not even there.
God Bless,
And I continue to pray for you and yours, and everyone else.
Well, thank you, ICANT. I'll think kindly on you, too.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1456 by ICANT, posted 12-26-2018 3:34 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1474 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2019 8:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1475 of 1482 (847788)
01-27-2019 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1474 by ICANT
01-26-2019 8:11 PM


Re: Creation
AZPaul writes:
No everything is not subjective. There are objective facts.
Could you give me just one objective fact?
Our perception of reality is governed by our senses, which are limited and flawed.
This is an objective fact.
The standard theory requires that the universe had an absolute beginning to exist. That would require that it did not exist in any form but began to exist.
Not quite. Present theory posits that this universe may have had a beginning. We do not know what that beginning looked like or what may have, if anything, preceded it.
Since that is an impossibility without a creator of some sort many have tried to come up with a way the universe could begin to exist without a creator of any sort.
Impossibility? How so? You don't know such "was an impossibility" because you don't know what, if anything, came before. No one does.
Everything that has been proposed would require a prior existence, for them to be able to take place. Which would require the laws of thermodynamics to have to make exceptions to the law. Which is an impossibility.
Thermodynamics appears to be a property of this universe. Since the properties of any supposed "prior existence" are unknown you cannot say such a prior anything was constrained by our views of thermodynamics or not.
But then maybe you are smart enough to explain to me how the impossible can occur.
Again, you cannot say that creation of this universe without a creator is impossible since you, me, no one knows squat how this creation took place.
Likewise water will not begin to boil until it reaches 213 at 560 feet below sea level.
You have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes. Not proof. Evidence.
Even scientists miss-speak on this issue using the popular vernacular.
There is only evidence with greater or lesser confidence. More evidence ... more different lines of evidence ... the greater confidence in the conclusion.
Water tends to boil at 212F when at sea level. But that also depends on ambient air temperature and the barometric pressure at the time. We are pretty confident, however, that this happens pretty much as expected around that temperature.
It's a philosophy thing. Science, despite loose talk on the part of some scientists, doesn't do "proof." We do "confidence" from the evidence.
You tell me "What experiments produce is evidence, not proof." then you tell me "time slows at really fast speeds". What facts support that assertion?
Look up "time dilation". We have a great deal of confidence in the efficacy of this well demonstrated phenomenon.
But according to actual scientific knowledge there is non existence outside of this present universe.
I don't know where you're getting this stuff, Reverend, but this piece of tripe is not from the scientific community. First, we can't even say there is such a thing as outside this present universe let alone what properties may or may not exist in it if there is.
From a knowledge perspective we can only say this universe is all that there is. But there are lots of speculations on what may be "out there" for the very reasons we are alluding to: that this universe may have had a beginning which may mean some prior conditions existed. We just do not know ... yet.
Actually the math breaks down at what is called a singularity ...
That's what I said, ICANT. We have no evidence of anything that could inform us of these things one way or another.
What facts support evolution?
Don't go there Reverend. That is a stupid man's rabbit hole. The evidence is there and is overwhelming. Might as well continue to insist the earth is still flat.
If you don't know how life began to exist you can't begin to talk about how that life evolved.
Sure we can. We do this all day long and twice on Sundays.
Evolution does not (yet) involve abiogenic origins. They are still two separate disciplines.
You do not get to force combine them for your own religious purposes. Each remains separate until the scientific consensus says otherwise.
Science can not tell us how life began to exist.
But you should be able to tell me where life came from.
Oh, BS. There is no "should" to it. Right now "we don't know" because we don't know.
If you want "should" then you should be able to bring your god in the flesh to my place for tea.
AZPaul writes:
We see the effects of dark matter in the rotations of galaxies all across the universe.
You see the effect of something. Whether it is an invisible made up something or the power of God is not discernible.
That's what I said, ICANT. We can see the effects, we don't know what it is, it's not discernible to us, it is dark to our sensors, we have to call it something so we call it "dark matter."
What part of "dark" do you not understand?
You could call it the power of God that holds the universe together.
You certainly could.
I wouldn't since I would rather wait and see what the science produces on the issue rather than jump at some "majik sky daddy" explanation in our present state of ignorance.
But a hypothesis is an educated guess.
You keep saying that. It's not right.
Hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observed phenomenon that needs testing. It is incumbent on the hypothesis to propose not just an explanation but what can be tested how, as well as what would falsify the hypothesis.
There is a whole lot more to this science stuff than you are aware.
AZPaul writes:
And neither are required for the universe to exist without flying apart. They are required to explain what we see the universe doing at this moment.
I thought both were required.
They both are required to explain what we see the universe doing around us today. The eventual effects of each on the future of the universe are proposed scenarios dependent on what detailed properties these phenomena end up having which are presently speculated but are still unknown.
Are you trying to tell me the critical mass density of the universe which is maintained by this imaginary dark matter and dark energy is not what causes the universe to stay together rather than end by flying apart or in a big crunch?
That is correct.
But whether Moses or somebody else made the statement "the life of the flesh is in the blood" that statement was recorded in a book that is called the Bible.
Something that was said that 2300 years later is proven to be a scientific fact would be classified as a prediction or a prophecy
No, it wouldn't. It would be called wishful thinking on the part of the preacher trying to push it as some deep understanding of physiology when in fact it was only the well known fact that if you bleed too much you die. Period.
The spirit will return to face its maker.
The water we know about. The flesh we know about. The spirit thing is fantasy.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1474 by ICANT, posted 01-26-2019 8:11 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1476 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2019 5:59 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 1477 of 1482 (847887)
01-29-2019 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1476 by ICANT
01-28-2019 5:59 PM


Re: Creation
Mighty fine day, Reverend.
AZPaul writes:
Our perception of reality is governed by our senses, which are limited and flawed.
This is an objective fact.
Which is subject to your personal biases.
Yes. Mine, my family’s, my society’s. Lots of personal bias everywhere.
What hypothesis has become a consensus that replaces the Standard Theory?
Be careful, here, Reverend. The “Standard Model” is in fact an accepted and strong scientific theory of particles/forces. It operates in a somewhat different part of the physics family of disciplines. Don’t confuse things in discussions by using the words “standard theory” when for a cosmology discussion what is meant is The Lambda-CDM model.
The thought is Science can't agree with the Bible so the universe couldn't have a beginning to exist.
Science don’t give a flip about your bible and, yes, despite this world wide conspiracy to eat your gods, it appears this universe may indeed have had a beginning. How? We don’t know.
And neither do you.
The laws of thermodynamics has to be suspended in the past in order for the universe not requiring an absolute beginning to exist, due to entropy.
Excellent. We pretty much know that didn’t happen any time back to about 10-36 seconds after whatever happened, happened. Before that, however, we know nothing. Not even if entropy played any role at all. Probably did, but we don’t know what majik may have happened back then.
But not to quibble. Yes, this universe may have had, and probably likely did have, an actual beginning meaning, maybe, just maybe, this whole blob of spacetime was sparked from "we have no idea."
According to the second law of thermodynamics the universe had to have a beginning to exist, in order to support life today. It could not have existed eternally in the past.
Everything mentioned by scientist to produce our universe require something to exist in order for the universe to begin to exist.
With that something producing the universe.
It is a fact non existence can not produce existence.
I have said on this web site many times that whateve .
I could quibble with that first sentence a bit but you were doing so well until that fourth one.
AZPaul writes:
Thermodynamics appears to be a property of this universe. Since the properties of any supposed "prior existence" are unknown you cannot say such a prior anything was constrained by our views of thermodynamics or not.
If my memory serves me, Sir Arthur Eddington said "if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble."
So very true . inside this universe. That’s the way our physics works. It may work in other universes or brane-worlds or whatever, the same way. But, maybe not.
I agree we are limited as is science/religion in what we know about the universe and how or when it began to exist.
There. Fixed it for you.
AZPaul writes:
You have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes.
You can do the experiments for yourself.
humm . ICANT . that wasn’t a challenge. Yes, you have evidence that water boils at certain temperatures at specific altitudes. So do I. So does everybody. That wasn’t the point of the paragraph.
Time dilation is a fairy tale.
In that case this entire modern electronic world is being driven by a fairy called GPS.
So you disagree with cavediver and Son Goku. They both assured me and made a lot of fun about my making a statement about standing on the outside fabric of the universe. They assured me there was non existence (nothing) outside this universe. As I understand it they both were practicing and teaching cosmologist.
Ohh, yes, I saw how you misunderstood what was said. And I am always open to any corrections they may have, especial from those two.
And I am saying anything beyond that break down has to come from the imagination of mankind. That includes string theory, bounce theory or anything else.
Just like all our other theories. Most proud of those big ones like SR, GR, QED, QCD, Lambda-CDM, the list goes on.
Really wish I could live to see the next big one. It’ll be a doozy.
To talk about it is dabbling in faith.
For you, I’m sure that’s true
I don’t have that handicap.
I know you do. But if God created life as put forth in the Bible it would evolve a lot different that it would if it began to exist any other way. Especially since that way has not been discovered.
Your considerable expertise in abiogenesis and evolution, no doubt.
If life came to be here on Earth the way we think it may have then the processes of evolution as we know them could very easily have produced exactly, or close to, what we see in this world today. No other alternative or speculated process put forward can do that.
The reason for the bit of softness in this is because I was reminded a few days ago about Stephen Jay Gould and his statement that if you could turn back the clock to when all life here was microbial and let the process of evolution work its magic anew humans would not be here.
I thought it was a scientific fact that life produces life.
Yeah, I hear that happens quite a bit around these parts.
And, to do you one better, right now it appears that ONLY life can put the chemistry together to produce other life.
We keep trying, though. Heck, we’ve been at this for less than a century while Mother Nature had millions of years to get it going. We’ll get there. We just need a few more decades . or more.
That's what I said, ICANT. We can see the effects,
No that is not what you said.
You said: "We see the effects of dark matter ". You were identifying and unidentified substance which has not been discovered yet.
Are you really that obtuse?
We call it that so we know what part of the human experience we’re talking about. Couldn’t have called it Hagen-Dazs Chocolate. Not that I would have minded but, hey, the confusion - and the lawsuits.
Then tell me why dark energy and dark matter was proposed to fix the problem? They could have waited until they had the answer.
You really have no idea how dark matter and dark energy were discovered.
Each was individually discovered by happenstance, not by design, and each, discovered several years apart, were jaw dropping head-scratchers.
Or are you trying to imply the Illuminati made them up in their on-going lust to control the rest of the universe just like we . they did with time dilation?
But I like to keep all things simple. Einstein said "if you can't explain your theory well enough to be understood, you don't know your theory well enough".
When talking with other learned adults, that’s one thing. When talking with children, that’s another.
AZPaul writes:
They both are required to explain what we see the universe doing around us today. The eventual effects of each on the future of the universe are proposed scenarios dependent on what detailed properties these phenomena end up having which are presently speculated but are still unknown.
They are touted to be the be all end all of the problem that is observed.
Right. OK. Touted by who(m)? What problem?
I’ll try to be gentle.
Galaxies are a wonder to behold. We like to study them. In detail. In extreme detail.
One day some bright people noticed that the spin of some of the arms in some observed galaxies was not right. The speed of the arms is dependent on the gravity present which is dependent on the amount of matter present. The outer stars were way too fast for the amount of gravity we could calculate from the galaxy’s observed matter. There had to be way more matter producing way more gravity causing the spin. Except no one could see any extra matter and certainly not 6 to 10 times more which would be required to see the observed spin. “Dark” matter came into the human lexicon.
They weren’t out to destroy the bible or out looking for ways to advance an atheist agenda or hold the universe together or or or. They certainly did not set out to bang Science’s head up against a wall and give everybody headaches, but that is exactly what happened. Now we know there is this stuff out there making up most of the matter in the universe, it’s apparently everywhere, and we have absolutely no friggin idea what this stuff is. It may even be, though not very likely, that this “dark matter” stuff is a math problem with General Relativity. Maybe our understanding of gravity needs to change. We just DO NOT KNOW. That is what dark matter is . a great big honking piece of our ignorance.
That is a most excellent problem to have, btw. A real mystery to be solved. The kind of thing humans love about studying physics. And it has nothing to do with your religion or any conspiracy to deny your specific flavor of deity.
So Moses realized the life of the flesh was in the blood. The KJV translators did not even know that the life of the flesh was in the blood.
Oh, I’m pretty sure if we could ask those folks, “What happens when you bleed too much?” they would answer, “You be dead!” Yeah, they knew.
But that does not make it any less a scientific fact that the life of the flesh is in the blood.
For your purposes of stretching some goofy scientific umbrella over your bible in a vain attempt to shoehorn into it some sorely lacking efficacy, it fails. It doesn’t even approach anything of scientific value. Not for that time. Not for today.
No known extant life which involves three distinct types of interdependent macromolecules (DNA, RNA, and protein), could have arisen in current form. This led researchers to hypothesize mechanisms whereby the current system might have arisen from a simpler precursor system.
No experiment has produced any results yet.
Au contraire. Lots of results. We know a whole lot about how it didn’t happen, how it might have happened, we just don’t have the exact recipe.
Again, give us time. We’ll find it. But don’t wait up. It’ll be a bit, yet.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1476 by ICANT, posted 01-28-2019 5:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1479 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2019 2:17 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1480 of 1482 (848663)
02-12-2019 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1479 by ICANT
02-12-2019 2:17 AM


Re: Creation
Hello again, Reverend. Hope you had a good week.
Which requires cold dark matter, and dark energy. Which may or may not exist as no one has found any nor do they know what it is.
Because certain things take place that can not be accounted for the phrase dark energy and dark matter was proposed to solve the problem.
Well things are a bit stronger than this statement portrays.
For dark matter, we know with certainty that something is exerting copious amounts of gravitational effect on galactic spin and this something is not the normal baryonic matter we all know and love which is the only thing out there that we can see.
Same with dark energy. In order to propel the accelerating expansion of space there has to be a source of energy which, at present, we cannot identify. There can be no doubt that something is exerting this push, something is causing space to expand, we just have no confirmed mechanism to blame.
It's kind of like finding a puddle of water in your living room. It had to come from someplace but all the pipes and the slab are fine so we need to look further for this mysterious "dark water" source.
Before we noticed these anomalies it is not like there were problems with cosmology that needed these things to fix. We noticed these anomalies and are now seeking answers for why. If these two wondrous things hadn't shown themselves we would have gone on fat, dumb, and happy continuing to study the other wondrous things we seek to answer in cosmology. Both galactic spin and accelerated spacial expansion were complete surprises. They were not made up answers to pending problems but totally new problems on their own. "Dark matter" and "dark energy" are not answers to these problems but grammatical place holders until we figure out what the hell is going on.
Just like inflation was proposed to solve a lot of problems with the Standard Model. Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy. He is one of the most noted cosmologist of my lifetime.
With all due respect to Dr. Penrose he doesn't make a consensus. While he is very smart indeed, and may be right, there are thousands of equally smart others who disagree.
The others require the universe to be eternal in existence which the second law of thermodynamics says can not be, as the universe is expanding.
Your understanding of entropy is somewhat stilted. A "creation" event may not be limited by anything of the sort. We don't know.
So my argument is just as valid as any other.
Religious majik? Uhhh...no. Well, probably not. To a vanishingly small degree of "not".
You have a great opportunity in this thread to prove me wrong.
I think we're both too far gone to do this in either direction, Reverend.
AZPaul writes:
But not to quibble. Yes, this universe may have had, and probably likely did have, an actual beginning meaning, maybe, just maybe, this whole blob of spacetime was sparked from "we have no idea."
But you do have an idea and you are very vocal about it.
I have my favorite proposals, a lot of them actually, but the religious majik you propose is not one of them.
AZPaul writes:
In that case this entire modern electronic world is being driven by a fairy called GPS.
Do you mean because the element of the atom called cesium vibrates faster the further it is away from sea level? That is not proof of time dilation, only that gravity affects things which we know.
Gravity's effect on cesium atoms at altitude is to speed up (better yet, not slow down) its internal operations. The same for any atom and any operation including your own metabolism, thought processes, and the durations between distinct events.
That is what we call time, ICANT.
What is there to understand about there being no outside of the universe?
The fact that we don't know if this is accurate or not.
The math, the theories, the philosophy we have do not operate in other than what we can presently detect or reasonably extrapolate.
We do not know, so cannot say, whether there is something more.
We do not know. And I submit it is not unreasonable to inquire.
Would you care to try and explain how any information can be discovered that is beyond the point that the temperature was trillions of degrees K?
Can't say we will but give us a few more decades/centuries and we may come up with something reasonable.
My kingdom for Quantum Gravity!
A few billions years will not produce life from non life.
Too late. That already happened. And apparently quite early in this planet's history.
Gravity affects clocks at elevation above sea level. Time does not speed up, clocks just run faster with less gravity.
Everything appears to run faster in less gravity - which has a limit. More to the point, everything appears to run slower in greater gravity - which has no limit. Everything. Atoms, clocks, chemical reactions, causality. Everything. That IS our understanding of time.
If you can't tell it to where the children can understand it how do you expect adults to understand it. The children have no preconceived ideas the adults have already made up their mind what they believe. And they don't want you to bother them with the facts. I learned that from preaching.
Yeah. We noticed that. Facts don't seem to play much of a role in a lot of what humans think and do. Especially in preaching. Pitty.
I don't have much time left at my age.
But you have all of eternity, Reverend, right?
I'm the one stuck in reality.
Have a good rest of the week, ICANT.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1479 by ICANT, posted 02-12-2019 2:17 AM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1481 by caffeine, posted 02-15-2019 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024