Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   GOD IS DEAD
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 256 of 304 (485636)
10-10-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by Agobot
10-08-2008 5:45 PM


Re: Recipe
Agobot writes:
Can anyone guess what this recipe is for(no, it's not candy)?
Oxygen (65%)
Carbon (18%)
Hydrogen (10%)
Nitrogen (3%)
Calcium (1.5%)
Phosphorus (1.0%)
Potassium (0.35%)
Sulfur (0.25%)
Sodium (0.15%)
Magnesium (0.05%)
Copper, Zinc, Selenium, Molybdenum, Fluorine, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Cobalt, Iron (0.70%)
Lithium, Strontium, Aluminum, Silicon, Lead, Vanadium, Arsenic, Bromine (trace amounts)
Hint: that's the recipe that wrote my signature .
I am not claiming anything, just thought it was funny and maybe somebody will ponder what life is.
Jism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Agobot, posted 10-08-2008 5:45 PM Agobot has not replied

Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 257 of 304 (485638)
10-10-2008 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Dawn Bertot
10-10-2008 8:58 AM


Re: A larger list
So your main argument is that your are not denying the very real possiblity of a deity
Unfalsifiable, so no.
that a diety is a valid explanation for the existence of things and it should be included as a valid explanation of things in the classroom
What classroom? Science? Then no.
Oh happy day.
Glad I could help.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 8:58 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 258 of 304 (485640)
10-10-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by Agobot
10-09-2008 10:46 AM


Re: Recipe
Agobot writes:
You still think we did not descend from Homo Erectus. Did your biblical god spread around fake bones and skeletons of homo erectus?
No he didnt spread fake bones around, your champions have the amazing ability to construct whole creatures out of a single tooth or a bone fragment. Quite literally they make a mountain out of a mole hill, and exclaim, "see we found it, no really we did, everybody look over here, we are scientists and we cant be wrong".
Besides this, why did numerous types of primates (gorillas, apes) and a whole host of other hairy goomers suvive and human beings but not one example of this intermediate imaginary contrivance. Can we really believe that millons of types of these things could simply disappear or be out competed?
Isnt it just a little supicious that not one example survived to the present day or that past generations do not seriously consider them.
D Bertot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Agobot, posted 10-09-2008 10:46 AM Agobot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Agobot, posted 10-10-2008 10:45 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 259 of 304 (485648)
10-10-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Dawn Bertot
10-10-2008 9:34 AM


Re: Recipe
Bertot writes:
No he didnt spread fake bones around, your champions have the amazing ability to construct whole creatures out of a single tooth or a bone fragment. Quite literally they make a mountain out of a mole hill, and exclaim, "see we found it, no really we did, everybody look over here, we are scientists and we cant be wrong".
Besides this, why did numerous types of primates (gorillas, apes) and a whole host of other hairy goomers suvive and human beings but not one example of this intermediate imaginary contrivance. Can we really believe that millons of types of these things could simply disappear or be out competed?
Isnt it just a little supicious that not one example survived to the present day or that past generations do not seriously consider them.
D Bertot
Attempting to disprove Evolution is the wrong approach in attacking hard atheists positions IMO. I don't think you stand a chance, evidence is in your face, against you. Didn't the Pope accept the Evolution theory a decade ago?

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 9:34 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 260 of 304 (485650)
10-10-2008 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
10-10-2008 3:35 AM


Two "choices"... existing reality or unfounded imagination.
Bertot writes:
Regardless of what you discover by this science, it will not allow you to formulate a conclusion above and beyond the principle of, two and only two possibilites. That being that either matter is eternal or a God that is eternal created that matter and set it in motion.
So you're saying we have 2 possibilities:
1. Matter is eternal
2. An eternal God created that matter and set it in motion.
Or, in other words:
1. The matter that we know to be a part of everything we find that exists is actually somehow eternal in it's fundamental nature.
2. Something that has never been shown to exist outside of the imagination actually created our material reality and set it in motion.
And then you're saying #1 is impossible, so #2 must be the correct choice, right? I think this is safe to just leave with the readers to decide on their own.
You then attempt to show #1 is impossible with:
Your physics, as wonderful as they are and as applicable as they are, will only allow you to argue and demonstrate a position such as the existence of things to a certain point.
Which is true. Our current level of physics is not capable of fully explaining how (or even if) matter is eternal.
But then you just jump right into:
Amassing all physical knowledge that is possibile will not undo or change these very basic principles
Really? All physical knowlege that is possible?
I don't see how you're showing this to be true, though. How do you know? Have you actually amassed "all physical knowledge that is possible" and checked yourself? That's gotta be a lot of knowledge. Are you seriously saying that it's impossible for someone to explain something tomorrow just because it isn't explained today?
What is stopping someone from learning something that actually does fully explain a fundamentally-eternal nature of matter?
Also, on what basis do you actually think option #2 is even an option in the first place? Why should something that only exists in your imagination actually be taken as a serious option for the creation of the universe? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Perhaps you should show that a God exists before you start saying what this God must be capable of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 3:35 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 261 of 304 (485665)
10-10-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Dawn Bertot
10-10-2008 3:35 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Bertot writes:
Your physics, as wonderful as they are and as applicable as they are, will only allow you to argue and demonstrate a position such as the existence of things to a certain point.
And it is only up to that point that i've said science has explained things...you are the one that has asserted that through logic you can figure out what happened beyond those points.
Do not forget your original point was about,
Bertot Message 205 writes:
I am not a Physicist either, and correct me if I am wrong, but isnt "No Boundary" the samething as infinite or eternal?
You asserted something without any understanding of the theory itself. That is where you make your so-called logical leap into theological conclusions that were never even a concept in the No-Boundary theory.
Just to make sure we stay on point, No-Boundary is not the same as infinite or eternal.
After that point, observation, experience, the nature and existenceof things falls squarely under the perview of logic and deductive reasoning.
If you don't understand the former, how can you effectively reason the latter? Perhaps a theoretical physicist can hypothesize about what came before certain 'points', but NOT someone with a laymen understanding of physics...even though you may think you can. Im pretty sure thats why physicist go to school and get degrees and stuff like that for.
That being that either matter is eternal or a God that is eternal created that matter and set it in motion.
Im sure this makes sense to you, but this is non-sensical within the frame works of science, and more specifically physics. We are talking about pre-BB conditions(whatever that even means). Matter is not even a thing yet...so how can it be eternal? Thess 2 scenarios maybe the only ones YOU can see fit to accept, but to me it does not make much sense in a way that can be verified, or that can make predictions, or that can be calculated, and as such has no place in physics.
Again, you are mixing physics concepts with theological ideology to formulate your own concepts of reality and origin. At the end you are left with a jumbbled up mess of ideas that can't be expressed rationally and you have to say things like "That being that either matter is eternal or a God that is eternal created that matter and set it in motion", when concepts like God or eternity can't be understood outside of the subjective experience.
You are also correct in your contention that it is "un-debatable", not because one cannot form a Valid conclusion in the matters. Its un-debatable, because it will reach a logical empass in the choices that reason will allow. That is exacally why my task is getting easier and easier in this context, you have no where to go in the argument or in reality. as your ability to debate the topic fades and as your inability to provide alternate possiblites fails, you resort to calling the science of logic and deductive reasoning, "opinions".
I could no more debate your concept of reality and God than I could someone who believes in Thor or Zeus. So don't feel special. But, do feel creative in the sense that you have created an image of some God like force that is un-contestable by the standards of science...thus you by default remove yourself from the discusion.
Your further slipping away is demonstrated in refering to logic and deductive reasoning and axiomaic truths, as "My logic" or "Your logic". They are simple demonstratable truths whether you believe them or not.
It seems like you lost focus of what it was that YOU were suggesting. YOU said that through logic you can fill in those gaps, or 'points' as you called them, where science just hasn't been able to cross. You said you can do this because logic and reasoning are just as good as the scientific method in this case, yet it is not since the only reason anyone even knows about things like the BB, or singularities, or an finite or infinite universe IS because the physics shows us just how those things take place, and how they came to those equations. SO, to further explain origin it would only be reasonable and logical to conclude that further theoretical physics is what is needed to understand the universe, and NOT deduced reasoning from a laymans perspective. You cannot possibily feel that your imagined God is as plausable of a solution to understanding the universe since God no more explains the universes origin than General Relativity does.
In fact heres your chance, if God did it then how did He do it?
So your contention that this is "My logic" or "Your logic', falls by the wayside as an argument, or as a negation of the principles that I have set out.
When taken in context of our discusion, and only within the context of this discusion, NO. It is YOUR logic. If it were JUST logic then 1. everyone would be in agreement, and 2. physicist would conclude as you do. But they don't, and ALOT of people disagree with you, so don't just tell us that you are using logic, show us how that logic is correct. Science admits it's limits, apparently YOUR logic has no limits. You sir are amazing then.
f you want to define, reality, axiomatic truths and valid conclusions as "skeptical" (incredulity), then be my guest. I will simpy wait for other explanations, which you have failed to provide.
The explanations that you have been given are with the current understanding of physics, they have their limits, they do NOT assume that which is not yet known. Incredulity falls on those who either use their limited understanding AND their beliefs to derive conclusions without evidence, OR those who just feel that if THEY don't understand the theory NO ONE else does either. Pick which one you are...
Reality and the existence of things, applied to deductive reasoning brought me to this conclusion, youve got it exacally backwards.
So you used NO facts?
Its all the same principles everyone uses in everyday walks of life.
Do you understand that we are talking about physics and very technical equations that are really just understood by physicist? Are you telling me that your day to day reasoning is enough to make conclusions about the origin of the universe? Really???
I dont have to experience being hit by a bus to know or understand all of the principles, to know it will hurt.
To quote a very horrible joke from another thread " what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?". My appologies for the horrible, lame joke.
No-Boundary proposal, remember? Do you really think you can understand the priciples of theories such as this one with just your day to day reasoning?
My belief in a creator comes from reality then reason.
Explain...
As I read your comments, it reminds me of a person that, however they came to be unable to physically walk, trying to do physical therapy to show them how to walk again. Remember, Its Reality and truths in reality along with deductive reasoning together to form as in this instance, irresistible conclusion, void of opinions or beliefs.
Your conclusions have no evidence to back them, they are just YOUR conclusions. Im reminded of this very funny Bertrand Russell story,
quote:
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
So what do you think, is it turtles all the way down or not? Her logic and reasoning assumes this...why is she wrong then?
Edited by onifre, : spelling

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-10-2008 3:35 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-11-2008 11:24 AM onifre has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 262 of 304 (485761)
10-11-2008 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by onifre
10-10-2008 1:58 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Agobot writes:
Attempting to disprove Evolution is the wrong approach in attacking hard atheists positions IMO. I don't think you stand a chance, evidence is in your face, against you. Didn't the Pope accept the Evolution theory a decade ago?
You brought it up I didnt. Im not interested at this point what hard atheists position are or are not on evolution. As far as the pope accepting evolution, I would say he is Catholic, so that is tantamount to getting just about everything else wrong as well, so why not evolution as well. For heavens sake the man thinks he is Inspired when speaking on spiritual matters.
If you mean by evidence in my face, bone fragments and tooth examples, Ill just wait for one of these harry goomers that magically went out of existence, every example of them, to walk out of the woods. And theres about as much chance of that happeing that I will become Superman in my life time.
Stile, the rafter and floor analogy provider, writes:
In other words 1. The matter that we know to be a part of everything we find that exists is actually somehow eternal in it's fundamental nature.
2. Something that has never been shown to exist outside of the imagination actually created our material reality and set it in motion.
Actually, these two statements are as far from what I said, as they could possibly be. When you say, "in other words", you are putting it mildly.
No 1. is a categorical statement as is if it were true and could be demonstrated. This is what you would need to demonstrate to eliminate the very real possibilty of No. 2. All indications suggest that nothing in existence is indeed eternal, which establishes the very real possibility of No 2, logically and rationally.
No 2. Deducing the very plausabile existence of God is not something that is a product of the imagination. Proving anything is not what we are talking about here, demonstrating it logically and rationally from a scientific standpoint of deductive reasoning is.
Which is true. Our current level of physics is not capable of fully explaining how (or even if) matter is eternal.
Thank you, a ray of sunshine at long last. Neither will it be able to provide an answer to this question outside the science of Logic and deductive reasoning, at any point. Instead of complaining about my position, please simply provide another solution than the two offered.
I don't see how you're showing this to be true, though. How do you know? Have you actually amassed "all physical knowledge that is possible" and checked yourself? That's gotta be a lot of knowledge. Are you seriously saying that it's impossible for someone to explain something tomorrow just because it isn't explained today?
Stile think about it logically (you know that other science). I never said that the eternality of the universe was impossible, I simply said that most indications suggest that mattter does not posses the characteristics of eternality, which would indicate that something that did posses these characteristics is a very plausable explantion based on deductive reasoning not imagination. There are only two choices, neither of which can be proved absolutely, but thats not required. From a rational and logical standpoint both are plausable explantions to the question, and they are the only choices one has to work with. One only has to demonstrate that you can "know", these are the only choices.
Are you seriously saying that it's impossible for someone to explain something tomorrow just because it isn't explained today?
Your missing the point Stile.
It is the simplest of suggestions to ask anyone to logically deduce another choice, its not possible, which makes it an axiomatic truth that is consistent no matter how much information one aquires. If science could somehow aquire all physical knowledge or even penetrate and discover the spirit world, this axiomatic truth would not change. This principle is the very fiber of existence. If nothing or us were here it would not be an issue, right. As soon however as something is here it reduces itself to only two possibilites.
Im not imagining anything on way or the other, its simply just the way it is, no matter what concept or term you apply to it. Its reality. You can rack your brain trying to come up with another alternative and you will go as mad as that philosopher in the video. Now that boys belt slipped right off the track
Onfire writes:
And it is only up to that point that i've said science has explained things...you are the one that has asserted that through logic you can figure out what happened beyond those points.
No I am saying that there are no other choices even if you do explain everything. When you or they do find out everything, either matter will have existed forever or God will have created it. You seenm to choose matter and I God, both are very plausable from a rational standpoint, you for your reasons and me for the fact that of entrop, you have to decide for yourself. The scriptures say that a man is without excuse for not seeing the existence of God. At any rate it is not a product of imagination. the existence of things themselves, law and order, apparent design and many other factors including the Word of God, lend credabile support some very logiacl and rational principles.
You asserted something without any understanding of the theory itself. That is where you make your so-called logical leap into theological conclusions that were never even a concept in the No-Boundary theory.
Just to make sure we stay on point, No-Boundary is not the same as infinite or eternal.
It does not matter what the theory suggests its what it can demonstrate and it cannot demonstrate the eternality of matter.
Also, while there are concepts of finite and infinite in physics, this does not exclude the very real (reality) concept of things having always existed (without beginning or end)verse limited in character and make up or having never existed then being brought into existence. these term are real becuse you can apply them to reality,. Physics canonly enhance this very real principle.
If you don't understand the former, how can you effectively reason the latter? Perhaps a theoretical physicist can hypothesize about what came before certain 'points', but NOT someone with a laymen understanding of physics...even though you may think you can. Im pretty sure thats why physicist go to school and get degrees and stuff like that for.
I dont need to understand theoretical principles to know very basic principles that are reinforced by the very old scinece of deductive reasoning in observation of reality. It was always there or it was not. If it was not there is only one other possibility.
Perhaps a theoretical physicist can hypothesize about what came before certain 'points', but NOT someone with a laymen understanding of physics...even though you may think you can. Im pretty sure thats why physicist go to school and get degrees and stuff like that for
Wait a minute , before you were certain that these things could be demonstrated, now you reduce it to,"theorectical" and "hypothesize", which is tantamount to saying you have no real clue at all. What I can "think" is based on very demonstratable truths.
Im sure this makes sense to you, but this is non-sensical within the frame works of science, and more specifically physics. We are talking about pre-BB conditions(whatever that even means). Matter is not even a thing yet...so how can it be eternal? Thess 2 scenarios maybe the only ones YOU can see fit to accept, but to me it does not make much sense in a way that can be verified, or that can make predictions, or that can be calculated, and as such has no place in physics.
Another assertion immediately following an admission that you as a lay person and even qulified people do not know. But now you say you know that matter was not matter before the BB. Matter was some form or property of something, or it was created from another type of existence (spirit), thats the point.
Your exclusion of these basic truth from you interpretation of physics does not exclude them from reality. Another example of your admission of defeat by not providing me with another solution to my proposition.
Think about it rationally, even if we dont understand all the principles of everything, it should be possible atleast to theorize another possibility than the two, corrrect? So just give it a shot from this perspective. Provide me with another solution that is not a rearranging of these two principles. So you begin to see that those bafoons in the middle ages[ Thomas Aquinas] were not as ignorant as we might have thought. The unmoved mover and prime mover and all that. As great as physics is, it has not provided a solution past these very old principles. And it will not.
I could no more debate your concept of reality and God than I could someone who believes in Thor or Zeus. So don't feel special. But, do feel creative in the sense that you have created an image of some God like force that is un-contestable by the standards of science...thus you by default remove yourself from the discusion.
By implication you remove logic and deductive reasoning from the "standards of science" as you call it, when in fact these are the very principles that establish the point I am suggesting and demonstrating. Real science and science in its purest form supports the reality of a creator, whatever you wish to call him/it. True science does not "contest" reality it supports it.
I believe the threads title was 'God is Dead' and now you are claming you have demonstrated this fact by suggesting that I have eliminated myself by default. You havent even got started with demonstrating things from a physics standpoint much less that God is not a reality and very plausabile explanation. So how can you demonstrate that God is not a logical possibilty when you dont even understand admittdley, the theorizes behind theoretical physics.
It seems like you lost focus of what it was that YOU were suggesting. YOU said that through logic you can fill in those gaps, or 'points' as you called them, where science just hasn't been able to cross. You said you can do this because logic and reasoning are just as good as the scientific method in this case, yet it is not since the only reason anyone even knows about things like the BB, or singularities, or an finite or infinite universe IS because the physics shows us just how those things take place, and how they came to those equations. SO, to further explain origin it would only be reasonable and logical to conclude that further theoretical physics is what is needed to understand the universe, and NOT deduced reasoning from a laymans perspective. You cannot possibily feel that your imagined God is as plausable of a solution to understanding the universe since God no more explains the universes origin than General Relativity does.
Still missing the point are we? You need to demonstrate that "logic and deductive reasoning" are not a scientific method, in the first place and in fact they are. Your above contention notwithstanding. In the second place the only reason anyone "knows about anything", not just the big Shlabang, but anything, is existence and reality and observation and understanding of reality. Before I even get close to determining the specifics of matter I can come to a very real and valid conclusion, that it only has two possible properties and solutions. To demonstrate my point as valid, I only need to demonstrate the limited characteristics of one to establish the only other possibilty of the other. again, instead of just complaining about my suggestion, simply provide me with another alternative. You dont need physics to do that do you?
You cannot possibily feel that your imagined God is as plausable of a solution to understanding the universe since God no more explains the universes origin than General Relativity does.
I wont even grace this completley non-sensical statement witha reply.
In fact heres your chance, if God did it then how did He do it?
By pulling from the supplies of his infinte knowledge, wisdom and power. How do you or anyone else make or create something? Since I do not understand the nature of your request in this question, I will wait for further clarification. You question at this point makes no sense.
When taken in context of our discusion, and only within the context of this discusion, NO. It is YOUR logic. If it were JUST logic then 1. everyone would be in agreement, and 2. physicist would conclude as you do. But they don't, and ALOT of people disagree with you, so don't just tell us that you are using logic, show us how that logic is correct. Science admits it's limits, apparently YOUR logic has no limits. You sir are amazing then
You have got to be kidding me, your standard for what is reality and rational is is everybodys opinion, give me a break. Dont make me start on the disagreements alone in your "scientific community". You do understand that there are people that still believe that we never went to the moon and those that believe the Holocost never happened correct.
As for the "context" and "context of this discussion alone", people may disagree with the conclusion of only two possibilites, yet all they need to do like yourself, is provide another solution. Quit complaining about one thing or another and present it. Logic and deductive reasoning only presents the plausiability of both possibilites, I never said it absolutely proves one or the other. Subsequent evidence deliniates between the two choices to make one more likely thant the other. At any rate logic and valid reasoning firmly establish the very real idea of a creator.
Science admits it's limits, apparently YOUR logic has no limits. You sir are amazing then.
Obviously it is very difficult for you to get anything correct. Its is irrelevant wehether science admits its limits or that I am amazing or not, neither of these are considerations. What is true and what is amazing is that axiomatic truths establish undeniable truths in reality which no matter what is applied to thits principles will not change it tenets. Now that my friend is amazing
The explanations that you have been given are with the current understanding of physics, they have their limits, they do NOT assume that which is not yet known. Incredulity falls on those who either use their limited understanding AND their beliefs to derive conclusions without evidence, OR those who just feel that if THEY don't understand the theory NO ONE else does either. Pick which one you are...
Wrong. Physics is the explanation of physical properties. Logic and the science of deductive reasoning demonstrate the only logical possibilites of the physical proprties. In a lot of ways the science of logic is superior to the science of physics, not in all ways only in some.
The there is no incredulity (skepticism) involved in the only choices. You would spend your time in a better fashion providing me with another solution, than compalin about me and mine.
I pick reason and commonsesnse and reality. Does that answer your little question. Its funny you are working so hard with the art of logic to demonstrate a point that cannot be overthrown, now that is iorony for you.
Do you understand that we are talking about physics and very technical equations that are really just understood by physicist? Are you telling me that your day to day reasoning is enough to make conclusions about the origin of the universe? Really???
Then have Joe physicist provide me with another solution. I think Dr Hawking already disagrees with you and that aint a good start for you.
Bertot writes:
I dont have to experience being hit by a bus to know or understand all of the principles, to know it will hurt.
SUC (stand up commedian) writes:
To quote a very horrible joke from another thread " what does that have to do with the price of eggs in china?". My appologies for the horrible, lame joke.
No-Boundary proposal, remember? Do you really think you can understand the priciples of theories such as this one with just your day to day reasoning?
If you cant see my point in this context is doubtful you will be able to see much else. So then you are saying physcists are the only people that can understand reality
I dont know anyone that can understand the "principles of theories" in connection with the reality of existence and things. Would you like for me to provide you with the quotes from hundreds of people including yourself in this present discussion that firmly admit as much. Try and understand this my friend, the no boundary theory provides no answers for the ultimate nature and existence of things. It does however, provide tenative answers about how things possibily operate.
Musing and day to day reasoning do not discribe unavoidable reality and axiomatic truths. Sorry those are the cold hard facts.
A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
This illustration while amusing, has nothing to do with what I have been maintaining. You would have spent you r time better giving the story where he was once asked "what are you going to do when you die and find out you were wrong, what will you say to God". He stated he would simply state there was not enough evidence. He like yourselves are flat wrong.
I can just see the lord saying to Carl S and Bertrand, well fellas if you hadnt changed the meanings of words like science and evidence, perhaps you would not have had such a hard time seeing the obvious evidence.
So what do you think, is it turtles all the way down or not? Her logic and reasoning assumes this...why is she wrong then?
Its reality and commonsense all the way down, all the way up, and all around. I see reality and existence supported by the science of logic and commonsense to the conclusion of a acouple of possibilites. Ill stop at this point seeing you have not provided me with another solution, other than comedy. I see existence of things, but no trutles supporting anything. Maybe your Pot allows you to see things that are not there also, eh?
D Bertot
.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by onifre, posted 10-10-2008 1:58 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2008 12:06 PM Dawn Bertot has replied
 Message 264 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2008 12:47 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 268 by cavediver, posted 10-12-2008 10:11 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied
 Message 269 by onifre, posted 10-12-2008 2:17 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 263 of 304 (485763)
10-11-2008 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot
10-11-2008 11:24 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
I never said that the eternality of the universe was impossible, I simply said that most indications suggest that mattter does not posses the characteristics of eternality
Really? Could you please explain these characteristics?
No I am saying that there are no other choices even if you do explain everything. When you or they do find out everything, either matter will have existed forever or God will have created it.
I have already given you two alternatives. If you want to refute them, I guess you had better start studying. I'm not here to nurse-maid you, especially with your spolit-kid attitude.
it does not matter what the theory [the no boundary propsoal] suggests its what it can demonstrate and it cannot demonstrate the eternality of matter.
Given that it is demonstrating the exact opposite, it's unlikely to You really do need to get a clue at some point, Bertot.
I think Dr Hawking already disagrees with you and that aint a good start for you.
you haven't the first clue what PROFESSOR Hawking agrees or disagrees with. We have already seen your woeful attempt at reading his words. To be so out of your depth and still be in denial is just hilarious, Bertot.
The facts are that you are just another sad pathetic theist, desperate for validation of your beliefs. You wouldn't know what faith is if a mountain load fell on your head. You utterly failed to provide anything other than hot air in my thread on Biblical evidence, and here you are just embarrassing yourself with crude rhetoric and attempts to wield concepts far above your understanding. If God is behind everything, he's hiding evidence of his presence well. So forget about it, and go find some faith. And learn a bit of grace and humility before He really gets pissed off with you...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-11-2008 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Agobot, posted 10-11-2008 2:17 PM cavediver has not replied
 Message 266 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-12-2008 9:21 AM cavediver has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 264 of 304 (485765)
10-11-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot
10-11-2008 11:24 AM


Deductive Logic and Evidence Based Investigation
Still missing the point are we? You need to demonstrate that "logic and deductive reasoning" are not a scientific method, in the first place and in fact they are.
Actually no they are not. Evidence based investigation requires more than mere logic and deductive reasoning in order to form conclusions that can be considered in any way reliable. And reliable conclusions regarding nature must be the aim of anything that can truly be called science. This point is absolutely key to the entire EvC debate.
PURE LOGIC
In the case of pure logic a reliable conclusion can be formed by deduction alone based on a true premise. In such cases the conclusion must logically follow from the premise and no extra information is required to ensure this.
EVIDENCE BASED INVESTIGATION - THE PROBLEM
However evidence based investigation is a very different beast. It is a fact that when undertaking any evidence based investigation we can never know whether or not we have all of the relevant evidence. In practical terms we can in fact be pretty sure that we actually do not have all of the relevant physical evidence available. Thus even with the application of appropriate logic we cannot have full confidence in our conclusions. Add to this the inherent human inclination to misapply logic to reach subjectively desirable conclusions and I am sure that you can see the problem that we face with regard to necessarily incomplete physical evidence and deductive logic alone. So what is the solution to this problem?
HYPOTHESES - THE SOLUTION
If incomplete physical evidence and deductive, potentially subjectively applied, logic do not ensure reliable conclusions how can we tackle this problem to ensure that we form the most reliable conclusions possible? We can test our conclusions against that which they purport to describe. In other words we can form hypotheses and test these against nature itself. Thus we maximise both the reliability and objectivity of our conclusions by continually pitting them against the very truths of nature that we hope to uncover.
PREDICTION
How do we undertake such tests? We make predictions derived from our tentative "conclusions" (i.e. hypotheses). Hypotheses which are themselves formed by applying deductive logic to incomplete physical evidence. If our predictions are demonstrated to be correct then we can have increased confidence in our conclusions. If our predictions are found wanting then our hypothesis is refuted. Depending on the nature of the investigation and the likelihood of the prediction being true we can assess how much such verification increases our confidence in a theory. Thus specific measurable prediction is the absolute gold standard of scientific verification. Because it is so damned unlikely to match prediction by chance.
THE CREATIONIST/IDIST ISSUE
When creationist/IDists insist that their interpretations are equally as valid as tested scientific conclusions, or when they claim that deductive logic as applied to physical evidence alone is a valid method of drawing scientific conclusions, they omit at least half of the scientific method. In doing so they miss the whole point of scientific investigation.
Without testing evidence based conclusions against nature itself, without the formation and testing of hypotheses, conclusions can never be rendered reliable. Conclusions cannot be separated from subjectively derived false logic being applied to incomplete evidence. In short such conclusions can never be considered scientifically valid.
Despite repeatedly asserting the validity of their methods in terms of logic and despite continually claiming that their conclusions are equally as reliable as those of true science the one thing I can guarantee is that creationists/IDists will make no efforts to form hypotheses or test their conclusions in any scientifically valid way.
No predictions are made. No tests are undertaken. No discoveries result.
CONCLUSION
Deductive, and potentially subjectively flawed, logic as applied to necessarily incomplete physical evidence cannot produce reliable conclusions. To render conclusions reliable by any truly scientific standard hypotheses must be formed, predictions made and tests undertaken.
Conclusions derived from deductive logic and interpretation alone are therefore both unreliable and unscientific.
Anyone who claims otherwise either does not understand the nature of scientific conclusions or has a philosophically derived position that they do not wish to be subjected to the exacting standards of truly scientific evaluation.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-11-2008 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

Agobot
Member (Idle past 5529 days)
Posts: 786
Joined: 12-16-2007


Message 265 of 304 (485768)
10-11-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by cavediver
10-11-2008 12:06 PM


Prayers statistics
cavediver writes:
If God is behind everything, he's hiding evidence of his presence well. So forget about it
That's what i was thinking the other day and I have no faith in religions. If i am right and there is a God/Creator/Whatever power that set everyting in motion, he's putting great efforts into hiding his presence. Why would he destroy all those efforts by providing us with his wisdoms in the Bible and reveal his existence to us so bluntly? Wouldn't it make more sense that those gospels were actually made up by men and not by a god that's so desperate to remain in hiding? Let alone the fact that the bible is so wrong on the creation account, the chronological history of earth, the fact that what it calls an omni-benevolent god is nowhere near being so omni-benevolent - the Holocoust, AIDS, leukemnia, etc. other grand life drama...).
Is there any statistics on the outcomes of prayers(prayer being such a common practice among all known religions)? I'd love to see what effect a prayer has on the desired outcome. That'd be wonderful in a thread like this.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind"
"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever - This is a somewhat new kind of religion"
-Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2008 12:06 PM cavediver has not replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 266 of 304 (485840)
10-12-2008 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by cavediver
10-11-2008 12:06 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Cavediver wrties:
I have already given you two alternatives. If you want to refute them, I guess you had better start studying. I'm not here to nurse-maid you, especially with your spolit-kid attitude.
Really? Do me a favor, humor me and represent them in simple, yet non-abusive english and lets see if they do not fall within the two categories. I cant refute imaginary things. Remember now, Mr Wonderful and amazing put them in simple english without alot of technical jargon. Agreed?
I dont need your nurse-maiding or anything else to study something. Also, it must be the ultimate irony for you to suggest that someone else has an attitude. You really do need to come down out of the palace for a while. I guess just being British initially entitles you to be an arrogant pompous moron, the rest must just be you as a person, what do you say? Although I was in your fine country for three years and I dont ever remember meeting anyone like yourself. I guess every country has a few of them like yourself, they must try and keep ones like yourself under wraps.
you haven't the first clue what PROFESSOR Hawking agrees or disagrees with. We have already seen your woeful attempt at reading his words. To be so out of your depth and still be in denial is just hilarious, Bertot.
I will give you one thing, you never stop with the intimidation angle. Do you really think this makes you believeable or acceptable. I can go through any of your threads anywhere any witness the same condecending attitude. Hey clown, its not working.
Besides this how much does one need to know to understand simple words by Mr. Hawking that all of this does not preclude the concept of a creator, only that it would limit us in understanding when he accomplished this task. Then there are all the other admissions of limitations about the theories and concepts. Talk about not needing to be nurse-maided, go back and read them. Its my guess that your hardline position and attitude twords theists wishes that he and others had not made these comments. Grow up rocket scientist.
The facts are that you are just another sad pathetic theist, desperate for validation of your beliefs. You wouldn't know what faith is if a mountain load fell on your head. You utterly failed to provide anything other than hot air in my thread on Biblical evidence, and here you are just embarrassing yourself with crude rhetoric and attempts to wield concepts far above your understanding.
Hey guess what I was right on both counts, you are an arrogant pompus jerk and you do hate theists, imagine that? Are you telling me that a hardline atheist would know what Faith is or is not. Like so many of your other non-sensical comments where in the world did that COME FROM and what in the world does it mean?
It does not matter the wieght of evidence presented to you in any thread you will simply ignore and dismiss it. Now you are trying in this thread to deny an obvious fact that even Dr Hawking seems to allow. Im sorry, did I fail to say before your an unobjective moron, if I did, let me say, your an unobjective moron.
"Crude rehtoric" and "attempts to wield concepts far above your understanding". More attempts at intimidation from cavediver. Forgive me mighty one, for not understanding anything without your guidance and wisdom. You are a PIECE OF WORK.
I excused you once before in another post. Now it seem I will have to do it once again. Ifyou will excuse me now have to respond to posts with actual arguments in them. Literally I cannot find one single thing that resembles an argument in your above post, excluding abuse, intimidation and posturing. Do you really believe people cant distinquish between the two. Grow up knothead ("knot" ,"interlacing that forms a lump"). Boy, lump of something sure does discribe you.
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by cavediver, posted 10-11-2008 12:06 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by cavediver, posted 10-12-2008 9:48 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 267 of 304 (485841)
10-12-2008 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by Dawn Bertot
10-12-2008 9:21 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Hey guess what I was right on both counts, you are an arrogant pompus jerk and you do hate theists, imagine that? Are you telling me that a hardline atheist would know what Faith is or is not.
Who said I was an atheist of any type, never mind "hardline"? Again with that reading comprehension, Bertot? Never mind, you've still time to improve... you may have missed that bit where I wrote about being a Christian (evangelical, born-again, charismatic, etc) for 22 years. I know about faith, Bertot... it's you that seems to be lacking in that area.
What I hate are lies, misrepresentations, falseness, and distortions. I also intensely dislike those that pontificate on subjects about which they know next to nothing. I'm talking about you, Bertot.
Besides this how much does one need to know to understand simple words by Mr.(sic) Hawking that all of this does not preclude the concept of a creator
Who has claimed that anything discussed precludes a creator? You really do need to keep up, Bertot. You see criticism and can't help but blurt "ATHEIST!" It is very telling, Bertot.
Its my guess that your hardline position and attitude twords theists wishes that he and others had not made these comments.
Now you are trying in this thread to deny an obvious fact that even Dr Hawking seems to allow.
how can you be SO far off-base and not realise it???
Literally I cannot find one single thing that resembles an argument in your above post
Then I guess we are square? However, unlike you, my arguments can be found upthread - you just can't understand them
Do me a favor, humor me and represent them in simple, yet non-abusive english
I'm sorry, I didn't think you needed nurse-maiding?
And non-abusive language??? You mean like
did I fail to say before your an unobjective moron
Grow up knothead
Question, do you have any logicians in your family, if so, I would seek them out (sic) gain the benifit(sic) of thier(sic) specialties.
I'm simply conversing in the language with which you seem most comfortable (just without quite so many spelling and grammatical errors.) I noticed a while back that you seemd to dole out the "moron" fairly liberally (ABE and "junior" of course - how could I forget your attempted intimidation of Rhavin, and you have the gall to call me on it ), so thought this was your chosen method of communication. Was I wrong?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : How could we forget this one...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-12-2008 9:21 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 268 of 304 (485842)
10-12-2008 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot
10-11-2008 11:24 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
I never said that the eternality of the universe was impossible, I simply said that most indications suggest that mattter does not posses the characteristics of eternality
Really? Could you please explain these characteristics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-11-2008 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 269 of 304 (485859)
10-12-2008 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Dawn Bertot
10-11-2008 11:24 AM


Re: ADDENDUM
Bertot writes:
No I am saying that there are no other choices even if you do explain everything. When you or they do find out everything, either matter will have existed forever or God will have created it.
It will do nothing of the sort. You keep implying this however, you do not seem to be familiar with current theories so you are just throwing words around.
Matter, again, did not existant UNTIL the BB, and not until condition were right for the first atoms to form. Whatever state the universe was in prior to that was matterfree.
You seenm to choose matter and I God, both are very plausable from a rational standpoint, you for your reasons and me for the fact that of entrop, you have to decide for yourself.
I have choosen nothing, I feel no need to choose anything, you seem to want me to pick a side as you have because you feel there are 2 sides. What if it's one side that includes God AND everything that science explains, then what? Who knows, and frankly I don't care. What we are arguing is for evidence that the very concept of God is something OTHER than man made mythology. You keep saying that it's just as plausable to think God did it. Why?
Lets say mythological religions never manifest into the religions of today, would you need to postulate a God-type-entity just to satisfy your need to know about the universes origin, or would you be satisfied with the current pace of science?
And please explain how you used entropy to conclude God.
The scriptures say that a man is without excuse for not seeing the existence of God.
Of course it does, whatelse is it going to say? That you're free to choose? , how would the control your thoughts if they didn't tell you things like that? Do you really not see it for the obvious scare tactic that it is?
At any rate it is not a product of imagination. the existence of things themselves, law and order, apparent design and many other factors including the Word of God, lend credabile support some very logiacl and rational principles.
God was used as a logical explanation when humans had a limited understanding of nature, there is no need to postulate a God that makes the universe go round anymore. Science does a fine job of explaining nature. Anyone invoking God now lack an education in science.
It does not matter what the theory suggests its what it can demonstrate and it cannot demonstrate the eternality of matter.
This is non-sensical. Matter being eternal does not make any sense, can't you understand that? You really must get familiar with what the No-Boundary proposal is saying.
All matter comes AFTER the BB. The no-boundary theory includes the BB therefore matter is not eternal within the scope of that theory.
Also, while there are concepts of finite and infinite in physics, this does not exclude the very real (reality) concept of things having always existed
Define things.
Physics canonly enhance this very real principle.
The principle of beginning or end is very real. However, in physics, and when one is speaking of the univrse, beginning and end become a very distorted concept. Take the Uncertainty Principle,
quote:
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.
  —wiki
Roughly translated beginning and end is unpredictable. And of course these are waves, NOT matter.
So yes concepts such as beginning and end make alot of sense to humans, probably on of the needs for gods, but in physics, and especially in QFT, these words are meaningless. The fact that you feel that logically you can rationalize a beginning to the universe by God is just because you feel a need for a beginning.
I dont need to understand theoretical principles to know very basic principles that are reinforced by the very old scinece of deductive reasoning in observation of reality. It was always there or it was not. If it was not there is only one other possibility.
I didn't say theoretical principles. I said if you don't understand the physics behind the current cosmological models of the universe, how can you begin to postulate what came before? What will happens is whats been happening where you get a convoluted mess of ideas based off of a limited understanding, which don't make any sense to those who have some knowledge of the current physics, and makes even less sense to those like cavediver who taught physics.
There is no knowledge of the state of the universe pre-BB, there is not need to go furhter into ideas of beginning and eternal, because those 2 ideas currently do not make sense.
Wait a minute , before you were certain that these things could be demonstrated, now you reduce it to,"theorectical" and "hypothesize", which is tantamount to saying you have no real clue at all.
Theoretical physicst hypothesize about pre-BB conditions, not laymen, is that better worded for you not to misunderstand it?
Another assertion immediately following an admission that you as a lay person and even qulified people do not know. But now you say you know that matter was not matter before the BB. Matter was some form or property of something, or it was created from another type of existence (spirit), thats the point.
Do you even know what matter is?
quote:
Matter is commonly defined as being anything that has mass and that takes up space.
If matter is anything with mass and takes up space wouldn't you think that space needs to exist FIRST before matter?
Another example of your admission of defeat by not providing me with another solution to my proposition.
Admission of defeat?
Here's a few alternatives, im sure you'll just reduce it to matter existing eternally so im not sure how mush this will help,
Loop QG, Loop quantum gravity - Wikipedia
Supergravity, Supergravity - Wikipedia
String theory, String theory - Wikipedia
M-theory, M-theory - Wikipedia
Theory of Everything, Theory of everything - Wikipedia
There I hope these helped.
So just give it a shot from this perspective. Provide me with another solution that is not a rearranging of these two principles.
1. God is not a principle, god(s) are mythological as are unicorns and faries. Therefore God is NOT a plausable theory.
2. Matter is not eternal, nor does it exist without our universe and thus is also not a plausable theory.
You have brought nothing to the table other than assertions.
Try and understand this my friend, the no boundary theory provides no answers for the ultimate nature and existence of things.
Try to undestand this, you don't know what the no-boundary proposal is even trying to explain. Your problem is that you want an answer to a question that does not exist. You are not satisfied with our current knowledge as a society, you feel the need to fill in the gaps because you feel that there IS an ultimate nature of things. You don't know what there is Bertot, you are speculating, and doing a very bad job at it might I add.
This illustration while amusing, has nothing to do with what I have been maintaining.
Really? Because I was picturing you as the little old lady.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies"
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-11-2008 11:24 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Dawn Bertot, posted 10-13-2008 8:55 AM onifre has replied

Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 270 of 304 (485922)
10-13-2008 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by onifre
10-12-2008 2:17 PM


Re: ADDENDUM
Bertot writes:
Do me a favor, humor me and represent them in simple, yet non-abusive english.
Cavediver writes or avoids is more like it:
I'm sorry, I didn't think you needed nurse-maiding?
And non-abusive language??? You mean like
Now pay attention class. This is what is called an evasion in argumentation. The reason he wont do this for you is that he knows his attempts will fail, just like his attempts to replace abuse with answers fails to get the job done. Again, this fellow calling anyone abusive is the mother of all irornies.
Cavediver,please put in simple english the response that indicates there can be more than the two logical choices, other than those I have set out. You made the contention that you had offered 2 other choices, please quit the song and dance routine and present them. Please by all means nurse-maid me. If you cant I will accept this as a consession in the matter.
Who said I was an atheist of any type, never mind "hardline"? Again with that reading comprehension, Bertot? Never mind, you've still time to improve... you may have missed that bit where I wrote about being a Christian (evangelical, born-again, charismatic, etc) for 22 years. I know about faith, Bertot... it's you that seems to be lacking in that area.
What I hate are lies, misrepresentations, falseness, and distortions. I also intensely dislike those that pontificate on subjects about which they know next to nothing. I'm talking about you, Bertot.
Again, this is not only ironic but comeical. You telling someone else they are Pontificating, lieing and distorting is simply a side-splitting joke.
So, "was a evangelical Christian for 22 years", is the same as saying you still are, correct, maybe, or a flat know. Or at bare (bear) minimum you still believe in a creator correct? Or is it simply a very real possibility in your mind form a reality standpoint. In any of these instances, while I am very happy for your admission, you give up your "seemingly" hardline position in this discussion.
If I am wrong and something is wrong with my reading comprehension, please present the line from any post (besides this one)I have ever been in discussion with you, that suggest that you believe in a creator. Now, class watch and see if he does this, I predict he wont, just like he has not produced in simple english another alternative.
I'm simply conversing in the language with which you seem most comfortable (just without quite so many spelling and grammatical errors.) I noticed a while back that you seemd to dole out the "moron" fairly liberally (ABE and "junior" of course - how could I forget your attempted intimidation of Rhavin, and youhave the gall to call me on it ), so thought this was your chosen method of communication. Was I wrong?
More distraction and double talk. Im still waiting. Please ole wise one, help us simple folk out in language we can understand. This shouldnt be a problem for such a wise and powerful person such as yourself.
Really? Could you please explain these characteristics?
He means here the physical world and eternality. Changing words in physics to avoid certain well established meanings, such as, without beginning or end, (eternal) does not change change the obvious reality that things either have been here forever or they have not. Eternal or eternality used in a non manipulative sense simple means it had a beginning or it did not.
The universe and everything we see and understand about it, suggests that its characteristics (nature) is one of contengency, each thing depends on its existence for something else. Also, things go from lesser to greater and back to lesser again, until they cannot regain the properties they once had, (their dead) At any rate (no pun intended), it takes the action of something or someone else to revive that source, if it can be revived, in most cases it cannot.
Everything we can see and understand has an obvious beginning, even the universe, which strongly suggests that it like anything else in make up, is not eternal in character, unchanging, without beginning or end. All you have to do cavediver is demonstrate that matter is eternal given this very observable principle I have just demonstrated from a reality standpoint.
Onifre writes:
Matter, again, did not existant UNTIL the BB, and not until condition were right for the first atoms to form. Whatever state the universe was in prior to that was matterfree.
That childrens song comes to mind. All around the mulberry bush. Around and around we go. Ill let you be the weasel and the monkey chasing eachothers arguments, ok. Something or someone produced the BB. You do not know what existed before the BB and you certainly cannot say it was not matter of some sort. Either eternal material or an intelligent creator brought it into existence, or futther existence, if you wil.
lLets say mythological religions never manifest into the religions of today, would you need to postulate a God-type-entity just to satisfy your need to know about the universes origin, or would you be satisfied with the current pace of science?
And please explain how you used entropy to conclude God.
It appears you are not a very experienced debater, or you are avoiding obvious points just to keep the ball in play. Onifre, God or a creator is not an imaginary concept, it is one that falls squarely within the realm of observable, demonstratable, reality based upon the science of deductive reasoning. There are only two choices, of which God (creator) is clearly one. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Of course it does, whatelse is it going to say? That you're free to choose? , how would the control your thoughts if they didn't tell you things like that? Do you really not see it for the obvious scare tactic that it is?
Your free to choose between obvious logical choices, which you seem to have disregarded in word only. Simply because you are avoiding reality doesnt mean everyone else has to.
God was used as a logical explanation when humans had a limited understanding of nature, there is no need to postulate a God that makes the universe go round anymore. Science does a fine job of explaining nature. Anyone invoking God now lack an education in science.
Pop goes the weasel.(small sleander fleash eating animal). Humans understand no more now, outside of God about the universe than they did in the beginning. Explaiing how a tree works, does not tell you where it came from.
And anyone disavowing God, or the very real possibilty of an creator lacks an obvious ability to reason correctly. Yes, science does a fine job in explaining matter, its just limited to give you any answers outside that context. That is where the science of deductive reason takes over.
You really must get familiar with what the No-Boundary proposal is saying.
All matter comes AFTER the BB. The no-boundary theory includes the BB therefore matter is not eternal within the scope of that theory.
It does not matter what the NBP says or does not say, it wont get you anycloser to an explanation of things or where they came from. If it did you would have long since presented it in this debate and avoided the song and dance routine.
Eternal is eternal no matter what twist you wish to put on the word. Things, before or after the BB existed forever or they did not. Here is an obvious example to avoid that conclusion, you stae and quote:
The principle of beginning or end is very real. However, in physics, and when one is speaking of the univrse, beginning and end become a very distorted concept. Take the Uncertainty Principle,
quote:
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that locating a particle in a small region of space makes the momentum of the particle uncertain; and conversely, that measuring the momentum of a particle precisely makes the position uncertain.
Roughly translated beginning and end is unpredictable. And of course these are waves, NOT matter.
So yes concepts such as beginning and end make alot of sense to humans, probably on of the needs for gods, but in physics, and especially in QFT, these words are meaningless. The fact that you feel that logically you can rationalize a beginning to the universe by God is just because you feel a need for a beginning.
I dont need to understand theoretical principles to know very basic principles that are reinforced by the very old scinece of deductive reasoning in observation of reality. It was always there or it was not. If it was not there is only one other possibility.
I didn't say theoretical principles. I said if you don't understand the physics behind the current cosmological models of the universe, how can you begin to postulate what came before? What will happens is whats been happening where you get a convoluted mess of ideas based off of a limited understanding, which don't make any sense to those who have some knowledge of the current physics, and makes even less sense to those like cavediver who taught physics.
There is no knowledge of the state of the universe pre-BB, there is not need to go furhter into ideas of beginning and eternal, because those 2 ideas currently do not make sense.
They only make no sense to someone that has rejected reality and theability to use reason and commonsense. Also, to those that will make every concerted effort to avoid the conclusion of a creator.
Do you even know what matter is?
Matter, material or things, what does it matter, you know what I am talking about, your just like that 'Sanford and son', piano your stuck.
Here's a few alternatives, im sure you'll just reduce it to matter existing eternally so im not sure how mush this will help,
Loop QG,
Supergravity,
String theory,
M-theory,
Theory of Everything,
There I hope these helped.
They helped to demnstrate that even these fellows are groping the dark (quite literally I might add)for answers to things they cant begin to understand. Further since I and others have gotten in trouble for simply presenting links, then making no arguments from them, I would suggest you make an argument form the ones youprovided and I will respon to it, agreed?
1. God is not a principle, god(s) are mythological as are unicorns and faries. Therefore God is NOT a plausable theory.
2. Matter is not eternal, nor does it exist without our universe and thus is also not a plausable theory.
You have brought nothing to the table other than assertions.
You are correct, I have not brought anything (new) to the table that has not been in existence and established for countless centuries. These principles are as firmly fixed in history and reality as reality itself, because they are reality. Every atttempt by you fellas to ignore and disregard them, falls in utter defeat.
A creator is a principle based in reality, observation and deductive reasoning, as quoted by the amazing Hawking.
The eternality of things, matter, material, or what ever you want to it is not a theory of any sort. Things exist, this should be obvious even to YOU. If they do, there are olny two choices for them.
Try to undestand this, you don't know what the no-boundary proposal is even trying to explain. Your problem is that you want an answer to a question that does not exist. You are not satisfied with our current knowledge as a society, you feel the need to fill in the gaps because you feel that there IS an ultimate nature of things. You don't know what there is Bertot, you are speculating, and doing a very bad job at it might I add.
I will admit this is the most eloquent you have been thus far in an attempt to explain our discussion, but it is involved with so many contradictory and confusing ideas. What you arefailing to realize is that there are obvious solutions and answers if you will to the questions of existence and ultimate nature of things, if you are looking in the right direction and using the correct "principles"of evaluation.
I dont need to fill anything in,it fills itself in. They are axiomatic principles that need no research or explanation. But by all means research and explore anything you want. If I am speculating I am doing it with the best possible information and the best possible evaluative tools in reality, obdservation, logic and deductive reasoning. I wont remind you again that you use these very basic, yet sound principles every waking moment of you little existence, so tell me again who is speculating.
Tell me, is your stand-up comedy as bad as your debating skills, ha ha.
You keep telling me I dont understand the NBP, yet you never explain really why it offers someother solution to the question of things, other than to change the menaings of words, concepts and ideas. Then you say, there is no need to worry about what came before this or that. You do realize that is not debating dont you?
Really? Because I was picturing you as the little old lady.
Im sure most little old ladies have much better reasoning skills than yourself. If you do need assistance though perhaps you could enlist the help of those heavy weight apologists, Pen and Teller, Or perhaps Bill Marr, now theres some mental giants I wouldnt want to mess with. Oh by the way Im being facetious.
P.S. Sorry for the lateness of my responses at times, I simply do not have enough time in the day for all of it, but rest assured I will get to every post. I would like to get to Straglers post 267 at some point here in the future it looks interesting.
D Bertot
D Bertot
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.
Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by onifre, posted 10-12-2008 2:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by onifre, posted 10-13-2008 12:29 PM Dawn Bertot 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