|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Big Bang Found | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. Again, no it does not. A multiverse would cause a universe like ours to emerge and itself not be bound to the function of time or the notion of a beginning.
If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition. Wouldn't it just mean that we need to re-define nature to include the Andromeda galaxy?
2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's) It simply means it is not bound to any function of time like beginning or end. Same as in Quantum Mechanics. Is that what god is? Quantum Mechanics? - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
And again, yes it does. kbertsche writes:
Again, no it does not. A multiverse would cause a universe like ours to emerge and itself not be bound to the function of time or the notion of a beginning. If nature had a beginning, it needs a cause which is outside itself, i.e. super-nature. Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not? If I understand your arguments, you seem to consider that a multiverse would be "natural", i.e. part of nature, and that it had no beginning. Thus, you seem to be arguing that nature had no beginning. (And if you consider the multiverse to be outside of nature, then the multiverse itself becomes the supernatural cause for nature.)
onifre writes:
That's one option. The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature".
kbertsche writes:
Wouldn't it just mean that we need to re-define nature to include the Andromeda galaxy? If "nature" is defined to be the earth, then this cause is "super-nature" by definition. onifre writes:
As I understand it, this is essentially the impersonal "god" of Einstein and Spinoza (though Einstein didn't like or accept QM, of course). kbertsche writes:
It simply means it is not bound to any function of time like beginning or end. Same as in Quantum Mechanics. 2) nature (including the process that you propose) is eternal, with no beginning, in which case it has effectively become a god (an impersonal god in this case, similar to Spinoza's and Einstein's) Is that what god is? Quantum Mechanics? {ABE: in my usage above, "nature" = "natural world". If you find my comments confusing, please try replacing "nature" with "natural world".} Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : ABE"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2979 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not? I've been trying to just deal with your use of the word nature but it's not working out. Nature is where deer and bears live. What we are talking about is the universe, 4d spacetime, or reality of you'd like. Now, do I consider a multiverse system where Brains and all that stuff reacts to create universes (I'm paraphrasing) as has been hypothesized to be part of our 4 dimensional spacetime? Then no. They are super small to the point where space and time cease to make any sense. Notions of begin and end are pointless.
The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature". So basically supernatural means even naturally existing galaxies too? That's nonsense.
As I understand it, this is essentially the impersonal "god" of Einstein and Spinoza Then it is no god at all, as both of these guys have clearly stated before. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre writes:
I'm simply trying to be consistent in my use of the terms. "Nature" includes everything that is "natural" and nothing that is not. Very simple. I don't care how you define nature/natural, so long as you are consistent and use the same semantic domain for both the noun and adjective forms of the word. Otherwise we can't communicate and will get nowhere. kbertsche writes:
I've been trying to just deal with your use of the word nature but it's not working out. Nature is where deer and bears live. Do you consider the hypothesized multiverse to be part of nature or not? What we are talking about is the universe, 4d spacetime, or reality of you'd like. Now, do I consider a multiverse system where Brains and all that stuff reacts to create universes (I'm paraphrasing) as has been hypothesized to be part of our 4 dimensional spacetime? Then no. They are super small to the point where space and time cease to make any sense. Notions of begin and end are pointless. "Reality" is a poor word to use, because we will not all agree on a definition. To a naturalist, "reality" is only nature. To a theist, "reality" includes the supernatural.
onifre writes:
IF you use a restrictive definition for "nature", THEN you have automatically conveyed this same restrictive definition to the word "natural". IF you don't like this definition for "natural", THEN you need to enlarge your definition for "nature". Very simple; just be consistent in your use of the terms. kbertsche writes:
So basically supernatural means even naturally existing galaxies too? That's nonsense. The other option would be to keep our definition of nature, in which case the Andromeda galaxy is "super-nature". {ABE: If it helps, I could use the phrase "natural world" instead of the term "nature". Would this be clearer? Do you consider a hypothesized "multiverse" to be part of the "natural world"? Would you consider a multiverse to have a beginning to its existence?} Edited by kbertsche, : ABE at end"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
I'm simply trying to be consistent in my use of the terms. "Nature" includes everything that is "natural" and nothing that is not. Very simple. I don't care how you define nature/natural Do you think the distinction between your position and Oni's is simply that Oni does not accept your definitions. That is clearly not the case. The issue is that you label extra-universal things supernatural, which is okay as long as you are clear. You then say extra-universal events are supernatural causes, and that God is everything supernatural, which is your conclusion. We know that you believe that God created the universe. For that matter, I believe it. But the issue is that you haven't produced an argument. You have steady simply equivocated about what supernatural means, and then pretended that we all must reach your conclusion despite the fact that you haven't produced an argument, philosophical or otherwise. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
No, I'm sure that our disagreements run deeper. But until we can agree on definitions we cannot explore this.
Do you think the distinction between your position and Oni's is simply that Oni does not accept your definitions. That is clearly not the case. NoNukes writes:
No, I label anything outside the "natural world" as supernatural. I don't insist on any particular definition for "natural world". I'll go with whatever definition Oni wishes to use.
The issue is that you label extra-universal things supernatural, which is okay as long as you are clear. You then say extra-universal events are supernatural causes, and that God is everything supernatural, which is your conclusion. NoNukes writes:
I don't think I've equivocated at all; I'm just trying to allow for any definition of nature/natural that Oni wishes to use. Oni's answers are confusing to me and seem to flip-flop between different definitions for nature/natural, depending on whether he uses the noun or adjective form of the word. We know that you believe that God created the universe. For that matter, I believe it. But the issue is that you haven't produced an argument. You have steady simply equivocated about what supernatural means, and then pretended that we all must reach your conclusion despite the fact that you haven't produced an argument, philosophical or otherwise. I have not tried to produce an argument for God. I have only tried to explain some claims that others have made and that seem to be misunderstood."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I have not tried to produce an argument for God. I have only tried to explain some claims that others have made and that seem to be misunderstood. I am referring to those instances where you say that if someone believes "X" is an ultimate cause or that "Y" is eternal, that X or Y are that persons gods.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 641 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
"Had a begining'?? Or 'began to expand'. Those entirely two different concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
But I don't believe I've actually said this, have I? I believe I've said that in such situations X or Y are EFFECTIVELY that person's gods. By which I mean that the person would probably not refer to X or Y their "god", yet the person ascribes unique characteristics to X or Y, characteristics which are traditionally ascribed only to gods (externality, pre-existence, ultimate causation, uncaused existence). I am referring to those instances where you say that if someone believes "X" is an ultimate cause or that "Y" is eternal, that X or Y are that persons gods."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
EFFECTIVELY that person's gods. By which I mean that the person would probably not refer to X or Y their "god", yet the person ascribes unique characteristics to X or Y, characteristics which are traditionally ascribed only to gods (externality, pre-existence, ultimate causation, uncaused existence That definition is total nonsense. If I think, mistakenly or not, that milk ultimately comes from lactating animals chewing on grass planted by farmer Brown, then those animals and farmer Brown are effectively my gods? Surely not. 'Effectively' already has a meaning, which is something like 'for all reasonable and germane purposes'. If instead, we are going to use your definition for 'effectively' which is something closer to 'what kbersche needs to make a point without making an effort' then I think we can dismiss the statement until after you actually make a point. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
If you don't like my description of the characteristics of a "god", please present an alternative. What would YOU say describes a "god"? That definition is total nonsense. If I think, mistakenly or not, that milk ultimately comes from lactating animals chewing on grass planted by farmer Brown, then those animals and farmer Brown are effectively my gods? Surely not."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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 334 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
What would YOU say describes a "god"? Imaginary, abstract, fictional, unreal, apocryphal, dreamed-up, made-up, non-existent, trumped up. Are some of the words i would use. Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If you don't like my description of the characteristics of a "god", please present an alternative. I am not going to provide an alternative. I think the entire approach of insisting that a singularity or a 'nothing' or 'the universe' is someone's god is silly and wrong. And it is not a matter of what I "don't like". Here is the question you are posing (as I interpret it): "Why cannot I (kbertsche) make a list of the characteristics I know or believe God has, and then without any other defense other than "it's traditional" tell others that anything that they say treads on my (kbertsche's) list is "effectively" their god. Part of the answer is that what you call "traditional" excludes the beliefs of lots of god worshipers. The Greeks and Romans did not believe any sentient created the universe, and most of their gods did not create anything. Aphrodite did not create beauty, she was in charge of it. Hades did not create the underworld, he was simply in charge of it. Artemis did not invent the hunt, she embodied it. Ares did not invent war. They also were not eternal Similarly, the Scandinavian gods largely created nothing. I couldn't begin to unravel the traditions behind the Hindu pantheon. Coming at things from another angle: Despite the fact that people worshiped idols, I doubt that anyone ever believed that they created anything. Yet they were false gods. So much for your traditional list. Secondly, listing characteristics is not the same thing as defining. That's particularly true when you don't bother to be exhaustive, nor to insist that all of the characteristics must be met. I could describe Santa as a red clothed man who delivers toys on Christmas. But I could not logically then tell you that every man clad that way and bearing gifts is effectively Santa Claus. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2160 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
NoNukes writes: I am not going to provide an alternative. I think the entire approach of insisting that a singularity or a 'nothing' or 'the universe' is someone's god is silly and wrong. And it is not a matter of what I "don't like".
FYI, here's a definition of "god" from Webster which is somewhat related to the way I was using the word:
Webster writes:
But I expect that you won't like this usage any better than mine, and will consider both Webster and the Apostle Paul to be "silly and wrong" in claiming that someone's belly can be their god. 3. A person or thing deified and honored as the chief good; an object of supreme regard. Whose god is their belly.Phil. iii. 19. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
FYI, here's a definition of "god" from Webster which is somewhat related to the way I was using the word:
quote: A god is a thing "deified". Is that how you define God? Isn't that just the tiniest bit circular? What kind of argument begins with "somewhat related" to your usage?
But I expect that you won't like this usage any better than mine You are making this about me. I do not notice a single objection to even one of my arguments that you are wrong. I'll address Apostle Paul's usage more directly. His usage is nothing like yours. When you approach his level of Christian apologetics, and I still dismiss you, perhaps you will have something to complain about.
quote: Is this anything like your usage? Because Paul is talking about the fate of people who do not live as Christians and who may even persecute Christians even as Saul used to do. Is this really what you are talking about. Because if it is, then you are equivocating.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024