Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion

Page 4 of 8 [ 122 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

24 Sep 2009, 8:18 pm

ruveyn wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

DW_a_mom wrote:

the so-called big bang

I'm assuming you're using the negative version of so-called here....why? Do you have some proofs to show that the physics world is wrong in their math? It's not just like someone made things up. It's what best fits our information and understanding of the world, universe, and reality around us. A lot of people have put in many lifetimes worth of work into getting us to our current understanding and are still getting new data and new understandings of how things happened. And they still remain with the big bang theory of the beginning so far. You're putting down a lot of people's very hard work (including people here who study physics and space sciences) with nothing more than your valuing your faith over methodical study and research.

The term "Big Bang" was invented by Fred Hoyle as a term of derision again Le Maitre's theory of the primordial atom from which the universe came. Hoyle was an advocate of the Steady State theory of the Cosmos (it was always pretty much the way we see it now). It turns out Hoyle was wrong. The discovery of the CMB radiation by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 gave Hoyle's Steady State theory the deep six.

So Big Bang started out as a jibe and a put down.

ruveyn

Interesting. And still had quite a lingering effect both in helping the ignorant just dismiss it via strawman and taking away credit from Lemaître ...at least somewhat in that I'd assume it'd probably be called Lemaître 's Theory otherwise.

Ironically enough, Lemaître was a monsignor....and now people who could have heard a church service from him ignore his theory.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

25 Sep 2009, 2:38 am

JetLag wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

JetLag wrote:

I should think that if a physics teacher were about to demonstrate with an atomic bomb just how a big bang creates things, he would have a short career.

Where did that come from? Someone mentioned atomic bombs somewhere?

By that I meant I don't see how the "Big Bang," the would-be-Mother-of-all Explosions, could have formed the entire universe and all living things, because explosions don't create things, they destroy them.

You didn't learn anything from last time I informed you that the term "Big Bang" is misleading, did you? :roll:

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Sep 2009, 9:42 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

people who believe this version of god seem to do so because they cannot grasp that in the great scheme of things we have a very tiny understanding of physics beyond our planet. The cosmological argument annoys me because it basically says "the formation of the universe is so complex that it must have a supernatural creator". Yes the universe is incredibly complex and yes it is always possible (although IMO highly improbable) that the simple answer "god did it" may in fact be correct, I prefer not to make such massive assumptions and just live with the idea that we have the knowledge of a newborn when it comes to the cosmos.

Then of course there is the issue of where did god come from, the general answer seems to be that god has always been. As Sand rightly points out if that rule is allowed for god then why not for our universe or the universe that gave birth to this one. It is very convenient for god not to need a creator, but then just about all religious explanations seem to follow the same rules of conveniency

The cosmological argument is a supposition based upon ignorance.

The cosmological argument does not say anything about complexity. Instead, the basis of the cosmological argument is the need for a first cause, so it really relies upon the non-existence of infinite objects.

Under the cosmological argument, God came from nowhere, usually God is conceived as having a timeless existence, at least before the creation of the universe, if not throughout all creation. The problem with saying that the universe always existed though, is that we would have to say that the universe existed for an infinite length of time, which goes back to the cosmological supposition that infinite numbers of objects do not/cannot exist.

I mean, I am not saying the cosmological argument is a *great* argument, but it is more than "supposition based upon ignorance". I'd say that the teleological argument might come closer to that, or even the argument from reason.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Sep 2009, 9:46 am

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

"God" is a lack of answer as it begs the question of where this bloke comes from. We have only seen intelligence arise through the gradual process of evolution, how would this "god" character form? Supergod, Superdupergod etcetera?

There are a few arguments:
1) God always existed, as God is a timeless entity and thus never had a point in time where He didn't exist.
2) An ontological argument, such as Anselm's or Plantinga's showing that God necessarily exists.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 Sep 2009, 9:54 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

1) God always existed, as God is a timeless entity and thus never had a point in time where He didn't exist.

I wonder if time exists for 1 or 2 dimensional existences?

Obviously time doesn't exist for the 4th dimension.

/we're a holographic projection from a 2 dimensional plane of existence.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2009, 10:00 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

It is impossible to envision a timeless being as such a being cannot act. The universe to such a creature (and I use the term creature because I cannot know what to call this thing) is totally static and there is no action since it does not move through time.
Everything just is.

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

25 Sep 2009, 10:17 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

1) How can something be 'timeless'?
2) Do you also find Zeno's Paradox a compelling argument?

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 Sep 2009, 11:23 am

Sand wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

[speculation]Well, it'd be a creature that detects more by varying degrees of entropy rather than by time.[/speculation]

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2009, 11:28 am

skafather84 wrote:

Sand wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

[speculation]Well, it'd be a creature that detects more by varying degrees of entropy rather than by time.[/speculation]

Detection is an action which requires time. A creature that pervades time is like a color that exists throughout a painting. The painted surface is four dimensional and merely holds a static pattern.

alba
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

25 Sep 2009, 11:52 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Under the cosmological argument, God came from nowhere, usually God is conceived as having a timeless existence, at least before the creation of the universe, if not throughout all creation. The problem with saying that the universe always existed though, is that we would have to say that the universe existed for an infinite length of time, which goes back to the cosmological supposition that infinite numbers of objects do not/cannot exist.

"Infinite numbers of objects" assumes plurality. Zeno (apparently) disputed plurality. Infinity may exist, while objects may not.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

There are a few arguments:
1) God always existed, as God is a timeless entity and thus never had a point in time where He didn't exist.
2) An ontological argument, such as Anselm's or Plantinga's showing that God necessarily exists.

Except for "God is a timeless entity"....the bold is probably correct. God, most likely, is not an entity.

Sand wrote:

God is probably not a being, creature, thing or creator. The structure of our language gives rise to misunderstanding. To say---It (God) does not move through time---may be correct, in the sense that there is no thing (God) and nothing is moving (Zeno's assertion), and there is no "time" to be moving through. The subject/object dichotomy may be false, especially with reference to "God".

Henriksson wrote:

2) Do you also find Zeno's Paradox a compelling argument?

If (as wikipedia claims) Zeno is saying:
Contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular motion is nothing but an illusion.
and:
Zeno can be interpreted as saying that to assume there is plurality is even more absurd than assuming there is only "the One".

then, yes, Zeno is/was most likely (at least partially, if not totally) correct. If the point of Zeno's Paradox is that our senses may be deceiving us, that is a very compelling argument.

Last edited by alba on 25 Sep 2009, 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

25 Sep 2009, 11:58 am

Sand wrote:

skafather84 wrote:

Sand wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

[speculation]Well, it'd be a creature that detects more by varying degrees of entropy rather than by time.[/speculation]

Detection is an action which requires time. A creature that pervades time is like a color that exists throughout a painting. The painted surface is four dimensional and merely holds a static pattern.

Doesn't require time. Detection is merely that, being able to perceive a difference. This isn't necessarily coupled with time...though our experience with it is that since we live on a rail going through time.

You also don't take into account the Schroedinger's Cat part of multiple universes. In an infinitely probable existence, everything happens. So actually entropy, as I stated above, is dead wrong just because that concept in itself is linked directly to time...but probability isn't necessarily linked to time.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2009, 12:00 pm

alba wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

"Infinite numbers of objects" assumes plurality. Zeno (apparently) disputed plurality. Infinity may exist, while objects may not.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

Or maybe you could admit that we really don't know.

This is a good answer.

Quote:

Except for "God is a timeless entity"....the bold is probably correct. God, most likely, is not an entity.

Sand wrote:

Henriksson wrote:

2) Do you also find Zeno's Paradox a compelling argument?

If (as wikipedia claims) Zeno is saying:
Contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular motion is nothing but an illusion.
and:
Zeno can be interpreted as saying that to assume there is plurality is even more absurd than assuming there is only "the One".

then, yes, Zeno is/was most likely (at least partially, if not totally) correct. If Zeno's point is that our senses may be deceiving us, that is a very compelling argument.

I can accept that motion through time is an illusion but time is a very solid conception and cannot be denied. There is no doubt we live in at least a four dimensional universe. But our experience cannot be deceived and the illusion of motion means something definitely is moving through time even if it is only our perception.

alba
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

25 Sep 2009, 12:12 pm

Sand wrote:

..But our experience cannot be deceived...

Are you sure about that?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2009, 12:14 pm

alba wrote:

Sand wrote:

..But our experience cannot be deceived...

Are you sure about that?

About the four dimensional universe? Absolutely!

alba
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 756

25 Sep 2009, 12:18 pm

Would you admit to the possibility that there might conceivably, or in fact, be more than four dimensions?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

25 Sep 2009, 12:30 pm

alba wrote:

Would you admit to the possibility that there might conceivably, or in fact, be more than four dimensions?

That's what the speculation is about these days. Eleven dimensions is frequently mentioned but I sense only four.

Page 4 of 8 [ 122 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Jump to:

Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion Post Reply New Topic

Religions and their respective bubbles of delusion