Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9159 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: K.Rose
Post Volume: Total: 915,049 Year: 2,306/9,624 Month: 151/1,588 Week: 80/267 Day: 40/40 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Sudden Dawn of the Cosmos and the Constancy of Physical Laws
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 48 of 244 (888348)
09-15-2021 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Christian7
09-15-2021 8:04 AM


Re: Actual Big Bang Theory
Instead of discussing and engaging with the feedback you've received, you're just ignoring it and restating your ideas in a slightly different way.
Gospel Preacher writes:
If the universe has laws,...
You're ignoring what Son Goku said about laws emerging from the equations that model our universe.
...if these laws are constant, if that constancy is an eternal one,...
You're ignoring what Stile and others said about the constancy of laws being only what we've observed so far in the tiny portion of the universe observable by us. The evidence we have so far indicates that they are, but you're also ignoring what Son Goku said about not knowing what came before the pea-sized universe.
...then by no means from nothing can it suddenly emerge, and not into nothing at any time disappear.
Since you left things out of the "if" portion of your statement, the "then" portion is not necessarily a valid conclusion. What's more, even if the "if" portion were accurate and complete, the then" portion still doesn't seem to be a valid conclusion from it.
For the laws of the cosmos, as they do permit a sudden dawn of all things, must also permit a sudden end of all things.
Since we do not know what preceded the Big Bang, we do not know if it was nothing. Even if it was, you have not explained how a sudden birth implies a sudden death. Why not a slow death, or why not no death at all - you don't say. It's worth mentioning that dark energy hints that the universe will end in a "big rip."
For there is no law saying all things must remain for eternity.
No one here is arguing for or against an eternal universe. Current evidence is not conclusive.
Therefore science is not a dependable thing.
This is not so different from saying, "Because science doesn't know everything it therefore doesn't know anything."
The collection of opinions you're offering is easily shown wrong. Some of them are self-evidently wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 8:04 AM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 60 of 244 (888363)
09-16-2021 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Christian7
09-15-2021 8:45 PM


You're replying to a 4-year-old message.
Christian777 writes:
The God of the Bible --
The OT or the NT God?
He is a righteous and immutable God,...
He seemed to change a great deal between the OT and the NT.
...who does not act according to caprice,...
The OT God was exceptionally capricious, and the NT God was not without his capricious moments.
...but according to His nature and character, making decisions which bring Him glory,...
Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory.
...fulfill His plan, and benefit His creatures, in line with His justice, and in line with His love.
You could reasonably argue that people of the OT received his justice, less so his love.
Also, this God, having promised promises, cannot but act in accordance with fulfilling them, seeing He also binds Himself to His word.
This is a bald declaration without evidence.
Therefore there is no possibility that God in caprice would violate nature's Laws.
This declaration is based upon the prior bald declaration and therefore has no support.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 8:45 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:43 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 61 of 244 (888364)
09-16-2021 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Christian7
09-15-2021 9:04 PM


You are again replying to a 4-year-old message.
Christian777 writes:
How do you know the laws of physics are the same as what they were yesterday?
Can you think of a law of physics so subtle that we wouldn't notice were it to change?
How do you know the laws of physics never changed?
How can you ask this after a) Stile explained that we look at them to see if they changed; and b) Stile used extremely tentative phrasing throughout to indicate the uncertain nature of our knowledge, never stating that we "know the laws of physics never changed"?
You either have faith in God's word or you have faith in something else.
You're declaring that we have to believe in something. If by "faith" you mean a religious faith, then no, we don't have to have faith in something. We can simply take the world as it is rather than as believers in fantastical unseeable things say it is.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 9:04 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:26 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 62 of 244 (888365)
09-16-2021 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Christian7
09-15-2021 11:03 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian777 writes:
If the universe had a beginning, it had a cause,...
And you probably think that if a particle pair like a positron and an electron flitted into existence that there must have been a cause. But there was no cause. They're appearance as virtual particles is just a quantum fluctuation of the sort that happen everywhere throughout space and time, as far as we know, and could be any equal/opposite particle pair.
...but this cause is not subject to the laws of nature,...
We already know of one phenomenon with no cause, virtual particles, and so there is no requirement that the beginning of the universe had a cause.
...for the laws of nature are bound to the place of this universe.
This is an odd way of saying it, if you mean what I think you do. The way I would say it is that we have not as of this writing observed natural physical laws being one way in one time/place, and another way in a different time/place.
Therefore whatever caused the cosmos, might also cause its destruction,...
Since we don't know what, if anything, caused the cosmos, I suppose it's not impossible that the same thing that caused it could also destroy it. One idea for the end of the universe that many cosmologists are willing to consider as a possibility is that dark energy could cause the demise in a "big rip," but no one's yet thought of a role for dark energy in the creation of the universe.
...and we don't know when that destruction will be.]
For the big rip, there are various estimates. One is about 22 billion years from now.
For the cause of the universe is unobservable, and therefore unpredictable.
You're declaring as true without evidence things you couldn't possibly know.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Christian7, posted 09-15-2021 11:03 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:18 PM Percy has replied
 Message 67 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:20 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 74 of 244 (888378)
09-17-2021 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:03 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it.
What's makes you think this? We know of no causal event for the Big Bang, for virtual particles, or for the time when a radioactive atom decays. Our observations of the natural world reveal some phenomena with causes and some without.
Our physical laws can transcend only as far as there is a space to contain it; beyond that space, the laws of physics are absent.
This is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Are you trying to say that outside our universe the laws of physics don't exist? If that's what you're saying, how would you know that?
That space either had a beginning, or possess eternal existence.
Again, this is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Our universe began at the Big Bang, but whether there was something prior to that is unknown. There's no way to know what you mean by the external existence of space.
This is obvious from the fact that, the Laws of Physics applies to what is physical.
If you're including photons and quantum probability equations as part of "physical" then you might want to choose a better word. Perhaps you meant to say that as far as we can tell the laws of physics apply throughout the universe.
What is not physical is not governed by physical laws, even as non-physical realities, such as mathematical and logical laws, limit all natural physical behavior.
I'm not even going to try to decipher this. I think the main reason I can't figure out what you mean is that you have no idea what you mean, either. Your entire paragraph is a mostly unintelligible word salad, as if you're just stringing together jargon that you don't understand into unsupported declarations.
I believe in a loving God;
That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?
You believe in a cold universe.
Copious observational evidence indicates an average background temperature for the universe of around 5°K, which is 451°F below zero. The facts say the universe is cold.
I believe in eternal life;
That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?
You believe in everlasting oblivion.
We accept that for which there is evidence, and there's no evidence for an existence after death.
quote:
For the cause of the universe is unobservable, and therefore unpredictable.
That's right. Nobody knows, which means your conclusions, based on your observations of nothing but speculative (and faulty) what-ifs, are not supported and are not allowed.
If nobody knows if the cosmos might suddenly change into an elephant, then nobody can depend on science to tell them the truth of things, because nobody knows.
Your answer is nonsense. You first said we can't know the cause of the universe (you called it "unobservable" and "unpredictable"), and AZPaul3 agreed with you, also pointing out that your "speculative what-ifs" (such as that there must be a cause) are unwarranted. But you then go off the deep end saying that if we don't know the cause then we don't know that the universe won't suddenly change into an elephant.
You keep repeating the mistake of thinking that because there's something science doesn't know that therefore science doesn't know anything. And you don't have evidence for anything you say, just a bunch of words strung together into what looks like nonsense.
And therefore, there is faith, not in God, but in empiricism, among all scientific atheists.
No large group is homogenous, so your generalization is of course false. Those with an empirical world view cannot be said to possess a faith anything like a religious faith. Certainly all the trappings of anything resembling religion are absent.
You yourself accept empiricism, but you wouldn't say you have faith in empiricism, right? You would say that your faith is in God. Nonetheless, empiricism says that you must breath, that you must eat, and that you mustn't jump in front of speeding cars. You accept all these empirical facts and many others, just like us.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:03 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:16 AM Percy has replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 09-17-2021 11:22 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 100 of 244 (888404)
09-17-2021 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:14 PM


Re: Actual Big Bang Theory
Christian7 writes:
But, by what power, or by what governor, do these laws subsist? Is it not God,...
Strange way of phrasing your question, hard to know what you're really asking. If you're asking why the laws of physics seem to be the same across all time and space, then the answer is, "We don't know." Religious people throughout history and prehistory have often taken deep questions whose answer is "we don't know" and replaced it with "God did it." Why seasons, why phases of the moon, why tides, why the weather, why thunder and lightning, etc., religious people throughout history have replaced "we don't know" with "God did it." You're not doing anything different from cavemen marveling at the awesome power of their gods to light up the sky during a storm.
Science doesn't know what caused the Big Bang or caused the laws of nature to be constant across time and space. Neither do you, and it chokes off discussion for you to repeatedly insist without evidence that God did it.
And if you trust in it, then you trust not in science anymore, but have faith in that thing or being which causes the universe to move.
What does it mean for the universe to move? Is English a second language for you, or are you just expressing yourself unclearly so no one can tell what you're saying and therefore can't argue with it.
If you just mean motion of matter within the universe then say so. If you mean something else then say so. But at least string words together in an intelligible way.
And if nothing causes the universe to move, but the universe moves itself, then you trust in the universe, and have faith in it.
What does "the universe moves itself" mean?
Without trust their is no certainty.
Not sure what you're trying to say here, but it is certainly true that within science there is no certainty. It's called tentativity.
And without certainty there is no knowledge.
Our scientific knowledge is not certain but tentative, yet it *is* knowledge. For example we know that the gravitational constant is 6.674×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2, but only to four significant digits. We don't *know* it's actual exact value. Our knowledge of it is tentative, in this case meaning in an inexact or imprecise sense. Yet our tentative knowledge of its value is sufficient to guide rockets into space and to distant planets. Though our knowledge isn't certain or perfect, it is still knowledge.
For knowledge is certainty of truth.
"Truth" isn't really a scientific concept.
Therefore, to know the truth of the world, is to trust in something that upholds the world.
It isn't possible to know what you're trying to say. "The truth of the world"? "Something that upholds the world"?
And therefore, without trust in that true thing or being that does it, there is not knowledge of the truth of the world.
Who knows what "truth of the world means," but whatever it is you're trying to say, we certainly possess a great deal of scientific knowledge about the world.
So, your knowledge depends on faith, whether it is faith in the true or the untrue.
So in what or in whom is your faith? In the God of the Bible, or in the universe? Without that faith, you have no confidence that the world has ever existed.
Maybe you should become a mystic.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:14 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 9:41 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 150 of 244 (888456)
09-18-2021 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:18 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
The virtual particles do that, because something caused them to appear. They did not pop into reality of their own accord. They cannot come into reality of their own accord, without before hand existing. Nothing can act that does not exist. To begin to exist is to act.
There is no evidence of any cause of virtual particles or of the time of nuclear decay or of what state an entangled particle will take up once observed.
Why are you offering useless evidence-free declarations of what you wish were true? It appears that you claim everything has a cause simply because you think it supports other things you believe true without evidence, so you simple declare, over and over again without support or rationale, that everything has a cause.
Everything does not have a cause, so far as we can tell.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:18 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:06 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 151 of 244 (888457)
09-18-2021 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:20 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
You have even observed the core of Mars.
Yes, we have observed the core of Mars. For just one example, Mars’s core has been measured — and it’s surprisingly large.
You seem unaware of how insipid your argument is. Everywhere we've looked throughout the universe the laws of nature appear the same, yet you're hoping that the places we haven't yet looked could contain different laws. Good luck with that.
The truth is, you don't know. You have faith.
The one who's demonstrated the least knowledge is you. You never seem able to muster an argument of the form, "The world is this way because..." The best you can do is, "The world is this way because I say so."
So how did you arrive at this truth? Evidence-based arguments only, please, if you don't mind.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:20 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 154 of 244 (888460)
09-18-2021 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:26 PM


Christian7 writes:
You remember yesterday, but only trust that yesterday happened. You do not know that it happened. Likewise, you trust that the laws of physics never changed. You do not know they never changed.
...
You don't know that the world is like that. You could be dreaming, and your mind could be inventing each new level of reality as you discover it. And you don't know that the same world you remember is the world you live in today or if it even exists.
Your "this is all a dream" argument would invalidate your own position and says you don't believe that, so why would you say it?
You're obviously avoiding the topic. Stile explained that we can see natural laws being followed everywhere we look, and his phrasing was tentative, so why would you ask, "How do you know the laws of physics never changed?" when he very carefully explained our knowledge is consistent with observation yet still tentative.
You're also responding to detailed arguments with single sentences that tend toward the cryptic. Please stop approaching the discussion this way and participate in good faith. There are people here interested in discussing the topic, but you seem to be trying your best to stymie them. Will you discuss in good faith or just prove you're still the same messed up kid inside?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:26 PM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 10:38 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 157 of 244 (888463)
09-18-2021 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Christian7
09-16-2021 6:43 PM


The NT God and the NT God are the same God.
And you believe this why?
quote:
He seemed to change a great deal between the OT and the NT.
He didn't change. God deals with people in different time periods in different ways. This is explained by the doctrine of dispensationalism.
What is your evidence that God didn't change? Giving something a label isn't evidence.
quote:
The OT God was exceptionally capricious, and the NT God was not without his capricious moments.
What did God do that was capricious?
The OT God or the NT God? For the OT God I think Job all by himself is a sufficient example. For the NT God there's the cursed fig tree and the death of Ananias and Sapphira. It's all in the Bible, as you like to say as if it settles anything.
quote:
Yeah, but that OT again, more anger and retribution than glory.
God showed the people of the Old Testament signs and wonders, and they refused to trust and obey Him.
The people of the Old Testament that God judged had broken His laws, and many of them were extremely wicked. He gave them plenty of time to repent but they did not.
Pharaoh knew that enslaving the Jews was wicked. He practiced wickedness all his life, and he had a chance to repent. But he refused. God sent ten plagues on a wicked nation, and gave them the opportunity to repent. But they did not.
Oh, I guess those poor OT people deserved the anger and retribution, had it coming. Too bad they didn't live in the NT era of greater love and compassion.
quote:
You could reasonably argue that people of the OT received his justice, less so his love.
God loved the whole world even in the Old Testament. The wicked nations of the Old Testament had time to repent but they did not. So the Israelites, God's instrument of judgment, wiped them out.
Ah, so much love.
quote:
This is a bald declaration without evidence.
It's in the Bible.
That's as good an argument as, "It's in The Hobbit." Your argument that "there is no possibility that God in caprice would violate nature's Laws" is still a bald declaration without evidence. You don't even have evidence that God exists, yet you're claiming he's the cause of everything.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Christian7, posted 09-16-2021 6:43 PM Christian7 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by jar, posted 09-18-2021 11:25 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 159 of 244 (888465)
09-18-2021 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Christian7
09-17-2021 11:16 AM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
Christian7 writes:
quote:
What's makes you think this? We know of no causal event for the Big Bang, for virtual particles, or for the time when a radioactive atom decays. Our observations of the natural world reveal some phenomena with causes and some without.
You said, “We know of no casual event for the Big Bang”, not, “We know that for the Big Bang there is no casual event.” The truth is, in the absence of knowledge, you make assumptions which are not evidence-based.
You appear to have lost the thread of your own argument. You argued that everything has a cause. My language that you're pointing to only indicates that we have no evidence of any cause for certain things. Therefore, how do you know they have a cause? You don't say.
quote:
This is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Are you trying to say that outside our universe the laws of physics don't exist? If that's what you're saying, how would you know that?
Outside the physical, which includes the multiverse, and outside any groups of multiverses and however high a level of grouping you want to go, (for there is certainly a highest level), there is no physical reality, and therefore no physical laws.
So all you're saying is that things that don't exist also have no physical laws. How is that relevant to whatever point you're making?
quote:
Again, this is either nonsense or poorly expressed. Our universe began at the Big Bang, but whether there was something prior to that is unknown. There's no way to know what you mean by the external existence of space.
Do you not understand that “to possess eternal existence” means the same thing as “exist eternally”.
I don't believe there's anything to understand. It's that you don't understand that your internal religious mumbo jumbo is nonsense to others.
To be more specific and clear: The form and behavior of physical objects are limited by non-physical things. Energy and matter are limited by logic and math. The laws of physics depend on logic and math; it is impossible for the laws of physics to violate logic and math.
That was very clarifying in showing hopelessly confused you are. No, the laws of physics are not constrained by logic and math. Logic and math are human constructs. They are used to model reality and can in no way constrain it. Many of our mathematical models are highly accurate and can be used to predict what will happen, such as the time and affected area of an eclipse, but they don't control reality.
quote:
That's nice. How does that relate to the origin of the universe and the constancy of physical laws?
I’m responding to your claim of me being a pessimist.
You're confused again. It was AZPaul3 who called you a pessimist, when you said that whatever caused the cosmos might also cause its destruction. How is "I believe in a loving God" in any way a response about the universe's eventual demise, which you yourself postulated.
What I’m saying is: Since you don’t know that the physical reality is all there is,...
It seems that in your thinking there's both physical reality and non-physical reality. If that's correct then how could we inhabitants of physical reality become aware of things in non-physical reality? Please describe this process in detail.
...you don’t know if you can depend on it to remain as it is, because you don’t know if something beyond it might destroy it.
Not impossible, I suppose, but you're way out on a speculative limb, and to what purpose? The sun could go nova tomorrow and wipe us all out, but how is that speculation an argument for anything?
You accept by faith that the physical reality is all there is.
Nobody here has said anything that would support this conclusion. You say this not because you have any support for it but because your religious mindset needs it to be true. It's based upon nothing.
What people have actually said is that we accept that for which we have evidence. Provide the evidence that caused you to accept what you think true about reality and we might accept it, too, depending upon the quality of the evidence. "The Bible says so," is not evidence.
You have not observed anything beyond this physical reality, according to your empirical claims.
True. Are you implying that unlike us you *have* made observations of non-physical reality?
Therefore, wherever there is a lack of knowledge, you yield an assumption,...
No one here has provided any support for this statement. Where we lack knowledge we say we don't know. Saying that all evidence we have supports the constancy of physical laws across time and space is not the same thing as saying that we know physical laws are constant across time and space. We're saying the former, not the latter, and you are continually confusing the two.
...at least in this matter, proving that, what you think you know, you merely accept by faith.
Since your premise was wrong, so are your conclusions.
My faith is in God, who created the physical world, able to be observed and understood according to the scientific method, but I also have trust that the physical world, which this God has created, can be observed and understood, not apart from my faith in God, but in line with it.
What we've observed of you so far is that you reject evidence from "the physical world, which this God has created," when it conflicts with your personal beliefs about God.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 11:16 AM Christian7 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Christian7, posted 09-18-2021 5:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 161 of 244 (888467)
09-18-2021 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Christian7
09-17-2021 1:34 PM


Re: Paul Steinhardt on Dark Energy.
You had a couple replies to this already, but I'm a sucker for nonsense posts and can't resist.
Christian7 writes:
quote:
What is so funny and typical of the Christian Cult of ********* is that if they truly believed such nonsense they also make the God they market irrelevant and impossible.
God has no beginning and no end; therefore your conclusion is false.
Your original statement was, "Nothing can begin without a cause; the beginning of something is not in itself, therefore an outside being or object began it."? Jar called this nonsense, and in response you argue that your God has no beginning and no end. How is that even relevant, let alone a rebuttal?
The universe must have a beginning, because it is animate. If something is animate; it cannot have always been, for change cannot occur eternally in the past, otherwise the present would never come.
We accept that the universe had a beginning because the evidence tells us it had a beginning, not because it is animate. Until Hubble's evidence of an expanding universe it was thought eternal.
The universe is limited and governed by non-physical reality, like logic and math.
You're using "non-physical reality" in two different ways. Sometimes you use it to refer to God and his realm, and other times, like now, you use it to refer to conceptual ideas like logic and math. God and heaven are not the same kind of thing as logic and math. I don't think you should use the same term for both.
These are not physical; these are mental. Therefore, being mental, they must have predated the universe.
Do you think you maybe left out a few steps of logic and argument there?
In fact, they never had a place in time; they are eternal, not from the present to the future, but in a timeless fashion.
You're just declaring things true without evidence. You're preaching, not discussing. We are not congregants in your church but equals in a discussion. You keep forgetting that and revert to making baseless declarations in the manner of fanatical street corner preacher.
Seeing the universe is governed and limited by them, it must have had its origin with them; but since they cannot act, they could not have created them. Therefore, since no inanimate mental object could have produced them, and all animate objects must begin, an eternal mind must have created them, not in time, but as part of time, a thing originating from this timeless, eternal mind.
This is word salad, signifying nothing.
This is not doctrine, but logic, derived from the premises, but likely not against sound doctrine.
If you think that was logic then you are very confused.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 1:34 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 162 of 244 (888468)
09-18-2021 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Christian7
09-17-2021 4:21 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
The universe is limited by logic and math,...
God, over and over. Christian, no, the universe is not limited by logic and math. Claiming it is over and over and over again will not change that.
Your post is the same nonsense word salad you've been repeating for a while now. People have tried to explain that it is filled with gaps in reasoning and logic and isn't based on anything we actually know, but you ignore all that and just say it again. Would you please stop repeating yourself and attempt to engage with what people are telling you?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 4:21 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 163 of 244 (888469)
09-18-2021 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Christian7
09-17-2021 5:03 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
This thread accelerated since I posted yesterday afternoon and I don't think I'll be replying to most posts, but this caught my attention:
Christian7 writes:
quote:
Again you are making assertions without explaining. I’m still waiting for your explanation of these supposed limits and why you think they are imposed by math and logic - or indeed how they could be imposed by math or logic.
One plus two is three. Put an apple on the table. Then add two apples. How many apples do you have? Can it be any different?
You're like a chess player who can't see more than one move ahead. When a response demands that you recall the conversation back more than one post, you get lost. How is the universe limited by logic and math? Please tell us. The world wants to know.
In other words, your answer (and many of your answers) completely misses the point.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 5:03 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22295
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 164 of 244 (888470)
09-18-2021 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Christian7
09-17-2021 9:33 PM


Re: Bad Philosophy
Christian7 writes:
quote:
What BS. Minds are not required. They are the key to our understanding but our understanding is not necessary for the universe to exist. It was here before us. It will be here after us.
At this point your two therefores in the first sillyjism are dead.
Minds are not required for the universe to make sense. Wow. So, sense exists independently of minds, and is not mental? So, to whom would the universe make sense then?
You're following the dictum, "Always change a losing strategy," which is one of the few signs of rational thought you've demonstrated in this thread. But abandoning irrational declarations to instead engage in misrepresentations of what people say probably isn't advisable. Go back to irrational declarations until you can think of something better.
AZPaul3 never said minds are not required for the universe to make sense. He said the universe exists regardless whether our minds are present or not. "It was here before us. It will be here after us." That's pretty clear.
I don't understand why you persist in arguing. It isn't that we disagree with you. It's that you're not even making any sense. You've expressed no rational position that people can assess, especially given your preference for bald declarations lacking any evidence. You have made a number of statements that can clearly be identified as wrong, but that's about it.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Christian7, posted 09-17-2021 9:33 PM Christian7 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024