Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 246 of 271 (577740)
08-30-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by PaulK
08-29-2010 12:09 PM


Re: What counts as detection?
At this point I have to state that you do not understand the point that you are replying to. The point is a caveat to your argument and notes that we do not need a sufficient cause i.e. a cause which entirely explains the effect.
...your point is NOT logical. If the reason why we only observe a finite number of things is because our observation is restricted to finite space and time we CANNOT validly extrapolate those observations to either infinite space or infinite time.
And "at this point" I find it necessary to clarify exactly what we are both saying here. I am saying that the only things we have with which to formulate conclusions, about the origin of the universe, is what we have observed and experienced. On the other hand you seem to be saying that nothing we have experienced or observed has any baring on the subject, and therefore "anything goes." (Just so long as its not God) "But that's OK because other smart people really support it?" Is that everything in a nut shell?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by PaulK, posted 08-29-2010 12:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2010 9:44 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 247 of 271 (577741)
08-30-2010 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Theodoric
08-29-2010 1:13 PM


Re: What counts as detection?
Just because we do not have an answer for an "original cause" it does not compute logically that it must have been a god. There could be many answers other than a god.
With what has been stated thus far by me, you are exactly right. But I think we don't want to walk before we crawl
I am just amazed at the opposition I am receiving at even the notion that something can not logically possibly come from nothing. I mean if whole universes can come from nothing, with absolutely no warning, shouldn't you be worried that you could have a big bang take place in your living room at any moment? There you are watching Sponge Bob and eating a bowl of cereal, and suddenly from the bowl you hear snap, crackle, BIG BANG!
Just kidding you my friend. Seriously (I like Sponge Bob) no seriously though, I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Theodoric, posted 08-29-2010 1:13 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 9:11 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 250 by Theodoric, posted 08-30-2010 10:22 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 252 of 271 (577926)
08-31-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by Huntard
08-30-2010 9:11 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
You cannot use normal human experience to look at these things, that will throw you off.
And what else is there if we don't?
This gives off the impression that you think the Big Bang was an explosion. It was not, it was a rapid expansion of spacetime itself.
Actually I am familiar with both points of view, and I don't accept either, but that's a different topic, and I don't think its really relevant to my point. Does it matter to the rabbit if the fox ran to catch him or just walked really really fast?
Me: I can't comprehend how someone could actually entertain the notion that something did not always have to exist in order for something now to exist?
You: Because we have no reason to think that that is the case.
Not if your going to discount observation and normal logic... then no we don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 9:11 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by Huntard, posted 08-31-2010 7:14 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 253 of 271 (577927)
08-31-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by PaulK
08-30-2010 9:44 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
However it is full of problems and errors and holes. Because you have neither a good handle on the current state of the relevant science, nor logical reasoning nor even Christian apologetics.
Well come on with it then Paul, lets here the major holes with an observation based explanation that refutes it. I can take criticism if its backed by something more than just saying "No, No, No," and wagging your finger.
But I could point you to a web page where a Christian using "experience and observation" argues that past time must be FINITE. Because that is what the argument HE likes happens to require. (Me, I can see that you're both wrong - neither option helps).
So your saying that both time being infinite or finite are wrong? Interesting. So are they wrong at the same time or is one only wrong at a time depending on which suits your argument?
What if I were to suggest that in reality time itself is nothing but an illusion invented by humans? Its nothing. Time does not really exist. It is a man made invention to measure passage of space between events. You can go to china, but you can’t go to a second ago. That second was merely our way of expressing the passing of an event. We have chosen to express it with man made increments called seconds. We can not travel back and view past events as they are happening, because they are not happening, but rather have already happened. We may be able to record current events and view a video recording of that event in the future, and we may feel like we are in the past, but actually being there when it happened is not possible.
Looking deeper into this thing that we call time, one might say that matter is required in order for there to even be time. Some type of matter is necessary with which to judge the passing of time. For example, we humans have patterned our entire concept of time with regards to the earth’s movement, both rotationally, and also with its solar orbit. We call a day, the amount of time it takes for the earth to make a complete turn on its axis. And likewise a year is the amount of time it takes for the earth to make one complete orbit around the sun. Our hours minutes and seconds are also based completely on the movement of the earth. So if you were somewhere out in the deep void of space where no planets or stars existed, nothing but deep blackness, then what would you base the passing of time on? There would be nothing but you to base it on. Maybe you would base it on the number of your own inhales. You might call 17,280 inhales, one day. But then again you’re still basing time on the existence of matter. In this case you are that matter. Therefore, technically, in a place where absolutely no matter exists, there would be no passing of time.
Our bodies wear out and we see other finite material around us breaking down and we have a tenancy to equate these things with the passing of time, but in truth the measure of time that we invented has nothing to do with their break down. Time is only an illusion that has no meaning to someone who has no expiration date. Therefore you are in a way right, time is neither finite nor infinite. That's because it is merely a man made illusion.
So when I say, "What existed before the universe?" I am talking about existence of something that time has no meaning to. If matter did not exist then there was no time, but that does not mean an infinite entity or entities could not be self existent. Time has no relevance to the argument. The relevant point is that finite matter now exists and no observations ever made can explain its existence without invoking an infinite source.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by PaulK, posted 08-30-2010 9:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2010 6:21 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 256 of 271 (578629)
09-02-2010 6:28 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by PaulK
08-31-2010 6:21 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
For instance your assumption that the universe has a finite future, when in fact the matter is not settled and last I heard it leans the other way ?
I didn't realize it was an assumption Paul. Because I got my information from news sources that interviewed some real heavy weights in the cosmology field. NewScientist reported that observations by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which was launched in 2001, of the large scale microwave background ripples did not match up at all with the prediction model of an infinite universe (spatially). Time magazine reported that the question has been once and for all settled... that the universe will fizzle out in a cold icy death. Two esteemed sources which say that the universe is both finite in size as well as life.
Page not found | TIME
Tantalising evidence hints Universe is finite | New Scientist
Or how about the illogic in your argument that since we, as finite creatures observing a finite portion of space and time can only see a finite number of entities we should assume that the total number of entities that have ever existed is also finite, even given infinite time ?
This is not illogical Paul, its pure mathematics. Mathematically nothing finite can exist infinitely apart from an infinite source. Think about all attempts to make a "Perpetual Motion" machine. That is to say some sort of machine that requires no outside source to keep it in motion. See Carnot's second law of thermodynamics. If you put 1 unit of energy into a machine, you MUST get less than that unit back out of it while some is lost. Laws of thermodynamics state this, and it has been proven to be true. This law effects everything finite. You can not get an equal or greater amount of energy out than what was put in. So in any system even one that produces "universes" if the originator is finite and the product is finite, you must eventually see a death or end to the entire finite system.
And in fact we do have observations that would suggest otherwise. We know that the vacuum is not empty. Instead it is a sea of particles flickering in and out of existence. If we extend this observation into infinite time, does it not follow that there must have been an infinite number of finite entities ?
First, note that you made the giant leap from a "sea" of particles to "infinite" particles. I would point out that just because a sea of water droplets may appear to us, to be infinite, it is still a vast infinity away from being infinite. If we were to remove one drop of water from the sea a day, given enough time, you would eventually drain the sea dry. This is not the case with something infinite.
Second, neither the big bang nor expansion theory postulates preexisting space or vacuum. Hence there would have been no place for virtual particles to fluctuate.
Third, virtual particles, if real, form as matter and antimatter in equal amounts. However our universe appears to consist almost entirely of ordinary matter. Antimatter is distinctly rare.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by PaulK, posted 08-31-2010 6:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by PaulK, posted 09-02-2010 7:00 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 258 by cavediver, posted 09-04-2010 4:11 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024