|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Cat,
Cat writes: I've been trying. Do you know what a manifold is in physics? According to Wikipedia it is:
quote: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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5
|
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: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5
|
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
And another thing creationists virtually always get wrong:
Theories don't grow up to become laws: theories explain laws. Edited by Coyote, : Word fixReligious 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:
|
ICANT writes: Nope. Scientific laws are descriptive. Not prescriptive. For some reason creationists never can spot the difference. Laws have to be created. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Pressie writes:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. But I'm surprised to see you take this position. Most atheistic naturalists would not agree with you.
Nope. Scientific laws are descriptive. Not prescriptive. Pressie writes:
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.
For some reason creationists never can spot the difference. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hawking and Mlodinow's quote from The Grand Design:
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024