Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 241 of 511 (772136)
11-06-2015 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by New Cat's Eye
11-04-2015 10:56 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Cat,
Cat writes:
I've been trying. Do you know what a manifold is in physics?
According to Wikipedia it is:
quote:
The concept of a manifold is central to many parts of geometry and modern mathematical physics
Source
A concept is something that is produced by mankind using his brain to figure out some things and how he wants them to work.
The time I talk about is a concept of mankind which is based upon the rotation of the earth relative to the sun.
This particular time measures the duration between events that takes place in existence.
Cat writes:
That is the classical non-relativistic scalar quantity concept of time.
That is not what I am talking about. That is not what the Big Bang Theory talks about, which is based on General Relativity.
We have three dimensions, width, breadth, and height. Each of these is something that can be measured.
A dimension is a unit of something that can measured.
So explain how the time concept you are talking about measures and just what it is that it measures.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-04-2015 10:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-09-2015 3:51 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 242 of 511 (772137)
11-06-2015 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by NosyNed
11-06-2015 7:20 PM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Ned,
NoseyNed writes:
That isn't an issue if the sum of the universe's energy and mass is zero. It is my understanding that is the case.
If you want to believe Alan Guth that would be the case.
But if his zero energy universe hypothesis is correct, why does the CMBR exist?
In other words why that very small entity in which all the energy and mass that is said to be compacted into it have such a high temperature?
If it is zero energy and zero mass then there would be no compaction and thus no heat.
I still believe the supernatural power that could provide all the energy and mass to form the universe is the best solution.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by NosyNed, posted 11-06-2015 7:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 243 of 511 (772138)
11-06-2015 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by ICANT
11-06-2015 6:54 PM


Re: ICANT,
If my supernatural power, (which I have proposed) that would be able to supply all the necessary energy and mass that was used to form the present universe we see today.
In your proposal, how does this supernatural power supply all the necessary energy to form our universe? Where does your supernatural power get this energy? How did this energy manifest into the inflationary/big bang?
You don't know. Aside from your belief, your desire that it be so, you have no physics models grounded in mathematics upon which to base your speculations.
If that power is not required, what is your solution?
We don't have any solution ... yet. We don't know.
In your opinion what was required in order for the energy and mass to begin to exist in order for the universe we see today to exist?
My two favorite scenarios for this universe are the quantum fluctuation and the brane world collision. Even though speculative, both have solid mathematical models based upon first principles in known physics behind them. Both models, according to their math, are capable of producing the enormous energy required to feed the inflationary/big bang. The question remains whether those models are correct reflections of reality. We don't know.
You base your speculation on nothing other than your desire. Anyone can propose anything on that basis. The intellectual tragedy is insisting on presenting these desires as the reality in the face of ignorance.
To have any efficacy, even in speculation, there must be a model that is mathematically complete and consistent as well as based on known physics or their logical extensions.
Having voiced my favorites here I am wiling to wager a small sum that when/if an effective, evidenced, model is finally achieved, that theory will be so strange as to make QFT look tame. One thing we have learned these past few hundred years is that this universe is more absurd than we can ever hope to imagine.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 6:54 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 244 of 511 (772139)
11-06-2015 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
11-06-2015 9:19 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
I am simply asking how you think God would go about answering the question "Why does something rather than nothing exist?" where God himself is the 'something' in question.
I don't have a problem with there being existence. As you know I have always said the universe has always existed just not in the form we see it today.
Straggler writes:
If God asks himself the question "Why do I, rather than nothing, exist?"
Since I am not really qualified to answer for God I will defer to Him.
quote:
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
The Hebrew word אהיה that is translated I AM means exist.
So God said I exist that I exist.
What do you think a supernatural power would be like?
Would a supernatural power have any restrictions?
There would be no restrictions as any entity that could place restrictions on that supernatural power would be a greater supernatural power.
The only restrictions placed on God are the ones He places on Himself.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2015 9:19 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by Admin, posted 11-07-2015 7:54 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 247 by Straggler, posted 11-07-2015 8:02 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 245 of 511 (772140)
11-06-2015 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Straggler
11-06-2015 9:28 AM


Re: ICANT,
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes:
If the laws in question are properties of the universe itself the the laws you speak of wouldn't actually exist until the universe itself existed. Thus applying these laws to the creation of the universe would be unwarranted.
How do you react to that idea?
Laws have to be created.
How did the universe create the laws that control the universe?
The laws didn't exist until the universe created them which would keep them from controlling the universe.
Seems like if that was the case neither would exist.
I still think the supernatural power that could furnish the energy and mass required to produce the universe is the best fit.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Straggler, posted 11-06-2015 9:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Straggler, posted 11-07-2015 8:56 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 249 by AZPaul3, posted 11-07-2015 12:58 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 251 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2015 8:04 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(2)
Message 246 of 511 (772150)
11-07-2015 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by ICANT
11-06-2015 9:04 PM


Re: ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Straggler writes:
If God asks himself the question "Why do I, rather than nothing, exist?"
Since I am not really qualified to answer for God I will defer to Him.
This is evasive, not to mention inconsistent since you seem to know so many intimate details of God and his actions. That was just Straggler's latest formulation of the question. In attempting to get you to answer the question he has phrased it in several different ways, for instance this way back in Message 196:
Straggler in Message 196 writes:
Why does God exist rather than nothing at all?
Straggler paraphrased your answer from Message 198 in his own Message 200, "He exists because we do," which makes no sense. You wouldn't think sensible the answer that "The universe exists because we do," so why are you offering the nonsensical answer, "God exists because we do"?
You originally asked why the universe exists rather than nothing. Because you believe God existed before the universe, Straggler quite reasonably asked the obvious next question, "Why does God exist rather than nothing?"
If it was a reasonable question for you to ask about the universe it's certainly a reasonable question to ask about God. Could you please answer the question?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 9:04 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2015 2:48 AM Admin has replied

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


Message 247 of 511 (772151)
11-07-2015 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by ICANT
11-06-2015 9:04 PM


Re: ICANT,
So God said that I exist that I exist
Which makes my point that God has no answer to the question of why something rather than nothing exists either.
If we are going to accept that things just exist because they do then we might as well start with the existence of things we know to exist (e.g. The universe) rather than introducing other entities into the mix and ascribing to them all sorts of super powers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 9:04 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 248 of 511 (772155)
11-07-2015 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by ICANT
11-06-2015 9:43 PM


Re: ICANT,
So your position is that an unrestricted God creates a bunch of physical laws first and then provides the energy for our universe to be created because that is what the laws he has just setup demand in order for him to bring our universe into existence whilst remaining in accordance with the laws he has created but which he is unbounded by.
I see.
Remind me again why you think the "law of conservation of mass and energy" applies to the formation of our universe rather than being a property of it?
Laws have to be created
Whether that is true or not brings us neatly back to the question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and what the nature of that "something" could be. Laws. God(s). Our universe. A universe creation machine. Etc.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 9:43 PM ICANT has not replied

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


(2)
Message 249 of 511 (772159)
11-07-2015 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by ICANT
11-06-2015 9:43 PM


Re: ICANT,
Laws have to be created.
No, they don't. They just naturally emerge from the workings of the universe. That's how we humans developed those laws. We watched the universe repeat something time and again then we developed a mathematical model of what we saw. After some refinement we could use the model to predict the action that was about to happen.
How did the universe create the laws that control the universe?
It didn't. We did. But why the universe acts this way or that is another one of those we-don't-know questions.
Keep in mind that deep dark scientific secret of tentativity. No matter how accurate our models may be they are only approximations pending further information. These things did not come to us written in some sacred text somewhere. They are based on human observations and are still open to modification.
The laws didn't exist until the universe created them which would keep them from controlling the universe.
Seems like if that was the case neither would exist
When the electrons and quarks froze out of the enormous energies in the very early universe why did they condense out at the energies they did? Why did they take on the quantum values and properties they did? Almost everything else in this universe fell into being from these. Some property of the initial energy we have yet to discover?
From there we see the repeated patterns. We build our mathematical models based upon these patterns and our "laws of physics" come into being.
We cannot build new models for areas we cannot observe or areas where our present models are not effective.
There are areas in the early universe, and prior, we cannot see and where our present models are not effective. We have no laws for these areas ... yet. We do not know what happened or how. We are ignorant of these processes. That's your cue to bring in your great god of all human ignorance.
I still think the supernatural power that could furnish the energy and mass required to produce the universe is the best fit.
There ya go. Program complete.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 9:43 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 250 of 511 (772160)
11-07-2015 1:02 PM


Laws
And another thing creationists virtually always get wrong:
Theories don't grow up to become laws: theories explain laws.
Edited by Coyote, : Word fix

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 251 of 511 (772200)
11-09-2015 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by ICANT
11-06-2015 9:43 PM


Re: ICANT,
ICANT writes:
Laws have to be created.
Nope. Scientific laws are descriptive. Not prescriptive. For some reason creationists never can spot the difference.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 9:43 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by kbertsche, posted 11-09-2015 3:25 PM Pressie has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 252 of 511 (772206)
11-09-2015 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Pressie
11-09-2015 8:04 AM


Re: ICANT,
Pressie writes:
Nope. Scientific laws are descriptive. Not prescriptive.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm surprised to see you take this position. Most atheistic naturalists would not agree with you.
Pressie writes:
For some reason creationists never can spot the difference.
Perhaps this is true of some creationists, but it is certainly true of most atheistic naturalists. When Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing, he is ascribing prescriptive, causative power to natural law. He is not viewing the law of gravity as merely descriptive. John Lennox pointed out Hawking's error very clearly.
Edited by kbertsche, : Added Lennox link.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Pressie, posted 11-09-2015 8:04 AM Pressie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by ringo, posted 11-10-2015 11:03 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 511 (772207)
11-09-2015 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ICANT
11-06-2015 7:51 PM


Re: ICANT,
Do you accept the fact that General Relativity uses a different concept of time than the one you use that is based upon the rotation of the earth relative to the sun?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 7:51 PM ICANT has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 254 of 511 (772208)
11-09-2015 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by ICANT
11-06-2015 6:57 PM


Re: ICANT,
Hello ICANT,
ICANT writes:
How would you propose that could happen without a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass required?
Proposal
link: So as to not post bare links and equations, The proposal that things can come from uncaused causes is a idea that has, and is one of many modern theories, thoughts, dreams, guesses.
Wikimedia Error
Edited by 1.61803, : add comment.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by ICANT, posted 11-06-2015 6:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by ICANT, posted 11-10-2015 3:35 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 255 of 511 (772210)
11-09-2015 6:46 PM


Moderator Comment
Hawking and Mlodinow's quote from The Grand Design:
quote:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Kbertsche's comment:
kbertsche writes:
When Stephen Hawking claims that the law of gravity can create a universe from nothing, he is ascribing prescriptive, causative power to natural law. He is not viewing the law of gravity as merely descriptive.
It might have been more clear had Hawking and Mlodinow began, "Because there are laws such as gravity...", but given just the quote and without having read the book it almost seems like they're saying that the laws of the universe existed before the universe. If so, isn't Kbertsche's interpretation worthy of serious consideration?
It would also be welcome to take this closer to the topic, a supernatural origin for religions, and by extension the universe.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024