|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
I think that Bertrand Russell nailed it:
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument." (Although given progress in scientific knowledge since the 1920's, it would probably now be better to substitute "the universe" for "the world"). ICANT, you are using the English language to describe physics that can only be described adequately in mathematics which is so complicated, that only a small number of people on the planet are capable of being at the cutting edge of it. And then you say "this makes no sense". The words which helpful scientists use to try to help people like me who can't do the mathematics, are only ever an approximation - at times, they won't make sense, because they are being used to approximate a scenario which is so far beyond our daily experience as to be incomprehensible, outside of that advanced mathematics. We can play games with the English words all day long. I could say that the universe has always existed. Because the word "always" means for all time - and one of the things that the singularity did was to start time. So because the universe has always existed, it never needed to be created - by anything supernatural or otherwise. That use of language is a fair one, and describes some of the science as I understand it. But it's pretty meaningless, because there's sod all mathematics in it, and therefore incapable of accurate dissection and analysis - we just end up playing linguistic and philosophical games, as the angels dance on the heads of pins. At its most fundamental level, the concept of cause and effect is really just a reflection of our day to day existence. In the weird and wonderful world of highly advanced physics, analysing what went on in the earliest nanoseconds of the universe's existence, why should our unbelievably simplistic concept of cause and effect have any meaning whatsoever ?Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
What points in time are you referring too? Are you referring to the time we can tell by looking at our watch which is determined by rotation of the earth in relation to the sun? Or are you referring imaginary time? So is it real time or imaginary time? I'm referring to real time that is not determined by the rotation of the Earth. I've explained this already in Message 145:
Time is inside of the universe and is determined by the earths rotation in relation to the sun. That's one way to describe time, but that is not the concept of time that the Big Bang Theory uses. Time is the 4th dimension of the Universe - which as a whole is referred to as spacetime. Do you know what a manifold is in physics? The Universe is a 4-Dimensional manifold and time is one of those dimensions. It is independent of, and is not determined by, Earth's rotation.
How can the universe exist at all points in time when time is a part of the universe which is controlled by the earth's rotation in relation to the sun? Because that's not what time is in physics.
So you have to invoke Stephen Hawking's imaginary time which is just that his imagination at work. ... I know you have bought into imaginary time as a place for the universe to exist in. But that is impossible as time is a part of the universe. I've done neither of those things. My point doesn't rely on imaginary time so you can stop bringing it up to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Cat writes: Because, to exist is to be. If there is not existence, then there is no being. For there to "be non existence" is self-contradicting. I believe you are beginning to get the point. I've gotten your point all along. You haven't been understanding my rebuttle. You are the one who has non-existence in a state of being from which existence emerges. You're the one asking why there cannot be non-existence. That you're now realizing that it is impossible is leading you into contradicting yourself.
Non existence is just that non existence. But non existence would mean there is no way for us to exist.There would be no place for the universe to exist. As you said there would be no being, no space, no time, no vacuum, there would be a complete absence of anything. Right, so since the Universe exists then there cannot be non-existence.That is what you were questioning so perhaps you may now see an answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Cat,
Cat writes: I'm referring to real time that is not determined by the rotation of the Earth You can use the vibrations of the atom if you want to to measure a second. But the Atomic clock has to be adjusted every so often to conform to the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. I think they call it leap seconds.
Yes you said you were using the real time of the universe not the one that is based on the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun. That real time you are referring too is vertical time which is the imaginary time Stephen Hawking referred to in my post to you in, Message 221. Where he said: " Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time." He goes on to say that imaginary time is just as real as the one where the arrow extends into the past and into the future. It still sounds like science fiction to me.
Cat writes: My point doesn't rely on imaginary time so you can stop bringing it up to me. There is only 2 kinds of time.One measures the duration between events. A watch or stopwatch is used to measure that duration. The other kind of time is the imaginary time Stephen Hawking spoke of that is used as a place for the universe to exist in while it is a part of the universe which is an impossibility. Now if you have a different kind of time explain it. The supernatural power that would exist to provide the energy and mass for the creation of the universe as we see it would not be limited by any kind of time you would want to invent. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
There is only 2 kinds of time. One measures the duration between events. A watch or stopwatch is used to measure that duration. But Cat Sci's point is that the first kind of time you describe, is nowhere near as straightforward as you want to imagine it - ie a single straight line of time, which describes the duration of every point in the universe simultaneously and on a linear basis (hence begging your question of what happens if you go further backwards in time than the big bang). Time is way weirder than that. Hence, if you were to take two identical alarm clocks, set them both to go off in a year's time, and then got in a space ship with one of them and bummed around space at a fair whack for 360 days before returning to earth, your alarm clock wouldn't have gone off, but the one on earth would have done. And this isn't the weirdest it gets. It's meaningless to imagine a three dimensional universe, existing during an utterly unrelated timeline. Space-time is a single thing - you fiddle with one, it affects the other.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
There is only 2 kinds of time. Wrong. First off, nothing I've been talking about has to do with imaginary time. So we can just completely drop that from our conversation.
One measures the duration between events. A watch or stopwatch is used to measure that duration. 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. I'll just quote wiki:
quote: Now if you have a different kind of time explain it. I've been trying. Do you know what a manifold is in physics?
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
By that logic, the US Constitution applied before it was written because it applied after it was written.
Straggler writes:
Because it applies after T=0. Firstly - How do you know that this law applies prior to T=0?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
So without a source for energy and mass the universe would not exist. . . . But the universe does exist. That requires a supernatural power to supply that energy and mass. No, your supernatural is not required. You may want to put forward your supernatural as an hypothesis to answer a question we still have open but there are other hypotheses that also answer that question without any supernatural. Your supernatural is not a requirement. To take it further, why should anyone entertain a supernatural hypothesis to answer our ignorance in this question when such invocations have always been so disastrously wrong every other time put forward? I would think that given the history of religious philosophy this species has experienced, filling this gap in our knowledge, invoking your god in this shadow of our ignorance where no one can see, would be the last thing you would attempt. What is it with religionists always equating our ignorance with their gods? Is your god the ultimate, infinite and perfect purveyor of universal ignorance? I could agree with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined:
|
ICANT writes: That means the energy and mass have always existed eternally in the past. OR..........it came into being from nothing. Poof. First there was nothing. Then there was something.Period end of story. We know that much is true. The how and why we do not know yet, you are free to attribute it to Goddidit. But you will get arguments from those who do not require a supernatural scenario. There is nothing wrong with your believing it was God. Except that it is not required to explain the statis quo. It is only required for those who need the certainty. But certainty can be a trap as well. "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamt in your philosophy""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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
In Message 189 I said I would begin moderating this thread today. That was before Faith got herself suspended for a week, but I will begin moderating anyway. I have this ruling:
I don't understand Faith's position that her arguments about style aren't actually about style, and if anyone does then I am listening, but to me it seems like nonsense. Avoiding nonsense in discussions here is one of my goals. Edited by Admin, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
IC writes: Regardless as to how many restrictions you would like to put on the supernatural power. What restrictions? 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. If God asks himself the question "Why do I, rather than nothing, exist?"Answer - .........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ICANT - Are you saying that ALL of the physical laws we observe in our universe somehow predate our universe?
Or is it just "conservation of mass and energy" you think predates our universe and not the others? Are you just picking and choosing the ones you think support your ideas and ignoring the rest?
IC writes: ...the laws that govern the universe... And this is the crux of the issue here. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi AZPaul3,
AZPaul3 writes: No, your supernatural is not required. 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. If that power is not required, what is your solution? 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? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi 1.61803,
1.61803 writes: OR..........it came into being from nothing. Poof. How would you propose that could happen without a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass required? 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
How would you propose that could happen without a supernatural power to supply the energy and mass required? 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024