|
Author
|
Topic: Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 376 of 414 (143965)
09-22-2004 9:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 373 by Rei
09-22-2004 2:36 AM
|
|
Rei, Sorry for not responding.
1) We're not supposed to believe in a basic set of fundamental rules which "just are". However
2) We *are* supposed to believe in an infinitely more complex - to the point of sentience - being that "just is". 1. We are to believe in a basic set of fundamental rules which "just are" because that is how God set them up. I have been trying to show reasons why QM is probably not the most fundamental set rules and that there is probably a more fundamental set of rules causing the strange effects we see in QM. 2. Yes
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 373 by Rei, posted 09-22-2004 2:36 AM | | Rei has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 384 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 2:39 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
Because it's not a law. You're overreaching to call it a law. It's not even something you've substantiated with evidence; there's simply an observation that some things follow causality, and other things do not appear to. The vast majority of evidence shows that it appears to be true. Only recently has there been QM which seems to contradict it. Why does Darth Mal say I just "made this law up?" This has been around for thousands of years. In the past when effects appeared to have no causes, it was later discovered that they DID have causes. Once again we have QM, which seems to have no causes - doesn't it seem likely that we will eventually discover what causes it? Especially since it has some huge flaws in it?
Doesn't the fact that the vast majority of things follow causality suggest that QM does too, but we just can't detect it? The fact that QM is also incomplete in explaining our universe suggests that something is wrong with it - perhaps there is underlying theory that causes the effects in QM. I mentioned an article exploring this in the magazine Scientific American, which no one has commented on, and mentioned how a more cause-effect "classical" theory can give rise to QM, which no one commented on except to squabble about how I used the word classical. I also mentioned how in the past all scientific evidence pointed to there being no cause for certain phenomena, and how this was later proven wrong, and how this is exactly like the situation we find ourslves in with QM. I am trying to debate the evidence against causality - but so far no one has replied to the challenges against QM I have mentioned.
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 371 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 2:21 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 10:53 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
Sidelined, I think I remember from some other threads that you are the one who says that God cannot be trancendent above his creation, the universe, because he still has to follow certain laws that apply to both him and the universe. Maybe this will help - God does not have to follow certain "laws" that are higher than him - those laws are incorporated into Himself in what is his "nature." God cannot violate his own nature, and thus he always follow those "laws," which are really just his own nature. His nature is the source of all the rest of the laws that guide the universe, like the law of non-contradiction, etc. But in addition to the his own nature God created other laws that guide our universe, laws he does not have to follow, such as time. Maybe God has his own "time" of sorts, but he is not bound by the time of our universe.
If he does not change then he cannot by any means alter the place in which he lives. 1. How does moving from one room to another change who I am? 2. God does not live in the universe - he is outside of it.
Any action he would commence would involve change since,presumably,he ia all there is then. Yes, there was a change - but not to him.
How does something that never began ever progress from an infinite past to reach our present day without a beginning? God created our time, and he can reach it quite easily... I'm not exactly following you here could you elaborate a little?
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 374 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 8:32 AM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 380 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 11:14 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1714 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
The vast majority of evidence shows that it appears to be true. No, it doesn't. The vast majority of evidence shows that the vast majority of effects have causes. That's it. You can't go from most to all, just because you'd like to. You can't substantiate a claim of all by offering most as evidence. That's logic, and it's just that simple.
Once again we have QM, which seems to have no causes - doesn't it seem likely that we will eventually discover what causes it? Given that the most accurate models are those which specifically specify no causes, no, I wouldn't say that's likely at all. QM is the most accurate theory we've ever devised in terms of how well the predictions from the math line up with the real world. If there's a conflict between QM and any other theories, odds are, it's the other theory that has the fatal flaw.
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6156 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
General Nazort
that God cannot be trancendent above his creation, the universe, because he still has to follow certain laws that apply to both him and the universe. You need to explain.What laws does God have to follow that apply to him?
God does not have to follow certain "laws" that are higher than him - those laws are incorporated into Himself in what is his "nature." God cannot violate his own nature, and thus he always follow those "laws," which are really just his own nature. His nature is the source of all the rest of the laws that guide the universe, like the law of non-contradiction, etc. What is the law of non-contradiction?
Maybe God has his own "time" of sorts, but he is not bound by the time of our universe. This is a very vague notion for which I must ask some sort of explanation.What is time of sorts mean?
How does moving from one room to another change who I am? I am sorry you did not specify a change of nature but just change in general for which my statement was aimed.
God does not live in the universe - he is outside of it. This is what I have been trying to nail down.He is outside of it. How does he affect it then?
God created our time, and he can reach it quite easily
What allows for actions is time.If god is beyond time then he is by definition unable to effect a cause. The point of my statement, "How does something that never began ever progress from an infinite past to reach our present day without a beginning?" is that you said that god has always existed therefore he never had a begining going back infinitely.How then does something with an infinite past ever reach this point in time?No beginning defines a time that never moves forward since this implies a starting point from which to base a future time. This is the nastiness inherent in infinities.
|
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1752 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: 02-19-2004
|
|
|
Message 381 of 414 (143983)
09-22-2004 11:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 380 by sidelined
09-22-2004 11:14 PM
|
|
God is a uncreated undiffirentiated reality, that both is and trancends the universe and all that is. Everything that exist receives it's being from God. God is being itself. God is perfection and is omnipotent as well as omnipresent. If there is something that is greater than God then that is God. The ineffable. Is any of this true? You say no. Can God be identified as a entity that fits the above description? Many theist believe it. Does believing something make it true? Or factual? No. Does disbelieveing it make it false? No. Regardless of how illogical believeing in God may seem, for many it is based on faith and logic does not enter into it. Can one atheist show how the Universe came to be? Without resorting to using the Big Bang as a cause. And can one theist show how God could exist apart from his creation? The whole argument is impossible to validate either way IMO.
"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 380 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 11:14 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6156 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 382 of 414 (144003)
09-23-2004 1:49 AM
|
Reply to: Message 381 by 1.61803
09-22-2004 11:59 PM
|
|
1.61803
Is any of this true? You say no I never did say no. I simply am trying to get to the bottom of the definitions of what god means that people throw out without critically examining it.
Does disbelieveing it make it false? No. Regardless of how illogical believeing in God may seem, for many it is based on faith and logic does not enter into it I am sorry but belief has nothing to do with something that has an actual existence.Whether I believe or disbelieve {neither of which my atheism requires}has no bearing on a real phenomena or entity.The fact of the matter is a an actual god would to my mind not be deniable.He would be able to converse with me as I would another human being and would not require belief.The fact that such is not the case immediately lends to mind the consideration that it is a construct of the mind. This is plausible explanation and goes along way to the explaining of other such constructs by people through the ages.
Can one atheist show how the Universe came to be? Without resorting to using the Big Bang as a cause. And can one theist show how God could exist apart from his creation? This atheist cannot show how the universe came to be because this atheist is unable to produce conditions similar to the Big Bang.this does not mean that the physics we have developed does not help to answer anything since it does but the origins of this immense universe are not something that will be discovered by not making n effort greater than belief in something. As for showing god could exist apart from his creation I am not the one making the claim therefore I need not do so.In the same way as I am not required to show how a person who claims massive winged invisible immaterial dragons guard the earth and help men in their moral decisions as I am not the person claiming it then why should I give creedence to a god that is as ineffeble as the dragons and are just as likely a explanation of anything dealing with reality?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 381 by 1.61803, posted 09-22-2004 11:59 PM | | 1.61803 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 383 by 1.61803, posted 09-23-2004 12:39 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1752 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: 02-19-2004
|
|
|
Message 383 of 414 (144104)
09-23-2004 12:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 382 by sidelined
09-23-2004 1:49 AM
|
|
Hi Sidelined, I always enjoy your post btw.
sidelined writes: I simply am trying to get to the bottom of the definitions of what god means that people throw out without critically examining it. I know, I was being provacative in answering you.  sidelined writes: The fact of the matter is a an actual god would to my mind not be deniable. I agree. If I am to believe something such as God, then I need to know which one, which version is correct? I stand ready to be convinced, problem is I am not easily swayed either. Be well.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 382 by sidelined, posted 09-23-2004 1:49 AM | | sidelined has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 385 by sidelined, posted 09-24-2004 9:26 AM | | 1.61803 has not replied |
|
Rei
Member (Idle past 7260 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: 09-03-2003
|
quote:
We are to believe in a basic set of fundamental rules which "just are" because that is how God set them up.
No, that would be a cause: God causing the rules to exist. I'm stating that, from your stance, we're not supposed to believe in a basic set of rules that "just are" - I.e., without a cause, but just as a fundamental basis of reality. So, once again, if I'm understanding you correctly: 1) We're not supposed to believe in a small, basic set of rules that "just are" (i.e., without a cause) 2) We *are* supposed to believe in an infinitely more complex (to the point of being sentient) being that "just is" (i.e., without a cause) How on earth does this seem like a logical argument to you?
"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6156 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: 08-30-2003
|
|
|
Message 385 of 414 (144406)
09-24-2004 9:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 383 by 1.61803
09-23-2004 12:39 PM
|
|
1.61803 Damn!I fell that hook line and sinker.I am such a zealot.ROTFLMAO Touche'. 
"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 383 by 1.61803, posted 09-23-2004 12:39 PM | | 1.61803 has not replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 386 of 414 (144544)
09-24-2004 7:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 379 by crashfrog
09-22-2004 10:53 PM
|
|
QM is the most accurate theory we've ever devised in terms of how well the predictions from the math line up with the real world. If there's a conflict between QM and any other theories, odds are, it's the other theory that has the fatal flaw. Yes, I know this, but there is still something wrong with it! How come after all these years there still has not been a quantum model of gravity that has been successfully developed?? QM can describe the behavior of tiny objects but cannot deal with larger objects. Isn't it logical to be suspicious of QM if it fails to account for gravity?
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 10:53 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
NosyNed
Member Posts: 9011 From: Canada Joined: 04-04-2003
|
Suspicious
All significant theories have some issues that need to be addressed. That is why there is room to advance. All that we are saying is that the best that we have leads to a specific conclusion. We hold that conclusion as being reasonable until something else comes along. It may be that GR is what is wrong not QM when it comes to a theory of quantum gravity. It maybe that handling gravity will be an extention to QM rather than an over throw. The comments about the accuracy of the predictions shows that, even if there are limits to where QM (as we know it) applies, it still works very well. It is foolish to disregard something which works so well and for which we have no better (and in fact nothing near to it). If you don't like the answers that QM gives us right now then replace it with something that works just as well and extends beyond QM and gives you answers that you like better. Einstein didn't like some of the ideas of QM and tried to work around it for decades. Do you think you can do better?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1714 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
How come after all these years there still has not been a quantum model of gravity that has been successfully developed?? Because gravity is by far the weakest force; too weak to detect by any means at the quantum scale.
Isn't it logical to be suspicious of QM if it fails to account for gravity? Isn't it logical to be suspicious of any theory of gravity that doesn't account for QM?
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 389 of 414 (145368)
09-28-2004 1:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 380 by sidelined
09-22-2004 11:14 PM
|
|
You need to explain.What laws does God have to follow that apply to him? Arghh - sorry sidelined, I got you mixed up with crashfrog. I was talking about his arguments in the thread "What is supernatural?"
What is the law of non-contradiction? Something can't be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same way.
This is a very vague notion for which I must ask some sort of explanation.What is time of sorts mean? If time is where cause-effect relationships take place, then God must have some sort of "time" in which he operates, but it is not like our time as we know it.
This is what I have been trying to nail down.He is outside of it. How does he affect it then? What do you mean how does he affect it? You don't have to be inside something to affect it. I can be outside of something and have an effect on it quite easily.
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 380 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 11:14 PM | | sidelined has replied |
|
General Nazort
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 390 of 414 (145370)
09-28-2004 1:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 384 by Rei
09-23-2004 2:39 PM
|
|
So, once again, if I'm understanding you correctly: 1) We're not supposed to believe in a small, basic set of rules that "just are" (i.e., without a cause) 2) We *are* supposed to believe in an infinitely more complex (to the point of being sentient) being that "just is" (i.e., without a cause) I guess that is what I am saying. However I have been trying to show reasons why a "small basic set of rules that just are" is not the rules of quantum mechanics - because of the problems with QM to account for everything.
How on earth does this seem like a logical argument to you? What is illogical about it?
If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 384 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 2:39 PM | | Rei has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 392 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:04 PM | | General Nazort has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2