Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 12:24 AM
332 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 0/17 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Author Topic:   Detecting God
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 211 of 271 (576863)
08-26-2010 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Huntard
08-26-2010 5:01 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
You indicated that answered prayer to a request for healing cancer would count as "god evidence." But what if the persons cancer just went into remission on its own and our prayer just happened to be around the same time that this was already going to occur? You can see how this one isolated case could not be counted as evidence. Perhaps 10 such cases would be sufficient.

I read an example once about an episode of the Simpson where Homer prayed that if it were God's will for him to eat a box of chocolate chip cookies that God would do absolutely nothing. Homer waited a few moments and observed nothing happening and so he said, "I accept your sign of nothing oh great one as a sign that it is your will for me to eat these cookies." Lol!

The point of course is that if you are using "signs" as evidence for detecting god then the sign has to be predetermined, and it has to be a sign that could not possibly be coincidentally a natural event occurring at the same time as the request. In other words it has to be very specific and very unique.

You also seemed to indicate that something could come from nothing. If that is what you meant to say, could you please give an example? You also seemed to indicate that if there was ever a time when there was nothing that something could still be here now. Could you please explain how this would be possible?

You also seemed to indicate that something can exist in an infinite state without the need to be self sustaining. Please explain how that could be possible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Huntard, posted 08-26-2010 5:01 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Huntard, posted 08-26-2010 6:42 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 212 of 271 (576868)
08-26-2010 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by PaulK
08-26-2010 5:05 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
I'll agree that our universe (which may be embedded in a larger universe) is probably finite spatially, and temporally in the pastward direction. I don't think that I can go further on that, but let's say that that satisfies.

Out of curiosity, what is your definition for universe? Mine is everything that exists. So if there were as you said "a larger universe" wouldn't it merely be a part of this "everything?"

Definitely no. It doesn't seem to follow at all.

You seem to be saying that you believe that something could now exist if something infinite did not exist. That would mean that you are not sticking to your "for the sake of argument" statement and that you believe something finite can exist in an infinite number. How is this physically possible?

Also you seemed to indicate that there is no requirements for something infinite to be self sustaining. So how can something infinite exist while needing external forces to feed its existence? That would seem to require the existence of other infinite sources to feed that infinite source. But then wouldn't those sources need to be self sustaining?

I don't know of one. "God" is definitely a poor choice because it refers to a personal entity and no personal qualities are even mentioned above.

I agree. Personality is one of the characteristics we generally assign to the term "god." And so far we have mentioned nothing that indicates this infinite, self sustaining, and universe forming entity is sentient. But for now are we not just trying to "detect" god? And not trying to exhaustively define him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2010 5:05 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2010 6:34 AM Just being real has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 213 of 271 (576872)
08-26-2010 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Just being real
08-26-2010 6:08 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Out of curiosity, what is your definition for universe? Mine is everything that exists. So if there were as you said "a larger universe" wouldn't it merely be a part of this "everything?"

Our universe would be the bubble of spacetime that we inhabit plus its contents. Since we can't see "beyond" it, we can't know if there is anything else or if there is whether it is infinite or finite.

And I ought to add that that is definitely not the definition you were using. If there is at least one infinite entity then "everything that exists" (which must include this entity) is also infinite.

quote:

You seem to be saying that you believe that something could now exist if something infinite did not exist.

I am saying that I see no reason why that could not be the case.

quote:

That would mean that you are not sticking to your "for the sake of argument" statement and that you believe something finite can exist in an infinite number. How is this physically possible?

No, it does not. Indeed I cannot see how any reasonable, sane individual could come to such a conclusion. How does the mere suggestion that a finite entity might have a finite cause imply "something finite can exist in an infinite number" ? And why, if we accept the possibility of infinite entities could it then be impossible for there to be an infinite number of finite entities ?

quote:

Also you seemed to indicate that there is no requirements for something infinite to be self sustaining. So how can something infinite exist while needing external forces to feed its existence? That would seem to require the existence of other infinite sources to feed that infinite source. But then wouldn't those sources need to be self sustaining?

Even if it does (and I am not convinced because you have to rule out a cyclic relationship where the collective is self-sustaining but none of the entities that make it up are) that doesn't alter the fact that my statement is entirely correct.

quote:

I agree. Personality is one of the characteristics we generally assign to the term "god." And so far we have mentioned nothing that indicates this infinite, self sustaining, and universe forming entity is sentient. But for now are we not just trying to "detect" god? And not trying to exhaustively define him?

If we can't work out whether the thing we are detecting is God or not, then how can we know that we've detected God ? And I would regard personality as being more important than being infinite or self-sustaining or even creating our universe. Mythology is full of Gods which are finite, not self-sustaining and played little or no role in creating our universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:08 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM PaulK has responded

    
Huntard
Member
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 214 of 271 (576873)
08-26-2010 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Just being real
08-26-2010 5:37 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Hello again Just being real,

Just being real writes:

You indicated that answered prayer to a request for healing cancer would count as "god evidence." But what if the persons cancer just went into remission on its own and our prayer just happened to be around the same time that this was already going to occur? You can see how this one isolated case could not be counted as evidence.


Exactly, which is why I included step 4: Show that the god prayed to was indeed responsible for the cancer being healed.

Perhaps 10 such cases would be sufficient.

No, for for every one of those cases it would need to be shown that the god prayed to was indeed the god that cured the cancer, and not some other god, who felt compasionate, for example.

I read an example once about an episode of the Simpson where Homer prayed that if it were God's will for him to eat a box of chocolate chip cookies that God would do absolutely nothing. Homer waited a few moments and observed nothing happening and so he said, "I accept your sign of nothing oh great one as a sign that it is your will for me to eat these cookies." Lol!

Lol indeed.

The point of course is that if you are using "signs" as evidence for detecting god then the sign has to be predetermined, and it has to be a sign that could not possibly be coincidentally a natural event occurring at the same time as the request. In other words it has to be very specific and very unique.

And then it would still be needed to show that it was indeed the god you meant that was giving the signs, and not some sort of trickster god like Loki, for example. You see, you can't just draw those kind of conclusions. "If sign A, B, and C are shown, that proves god exists" is not a good argument. You cannot draw the conclusion from those signs alone, you have no way of knowing if your god did indeed produce them.

You also seemed to indicate that something could come from nothing. If that is what you meant to say, could you please give an example?

Well, in physics, there is a phenomonom where particles pop out of nothing, I'd have to do some research into this, I will probably have an example by tonight.

You also seemed to indicate that if there was ever a time when there was nothing that something could still be here now. Could you please explain how this would be possible?

Via the same phenomenom I mentioned above. Also, again, there was never a time when there was nothing.

You also seemed to indicate that something can exist in an infinite state without the need to be self sustaining. Please explain how that could be possible?

Simple, something else sustains it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 5:37 AM Just being real has not yet responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 215 of 271 (576878)
08-26-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by PaulK
08-26-2010 6:34 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Our universe would be the bubble of spacetime that we inhabit plus its contents. Since we can't see "beyond" it, we can't know if there is anything else or if there is whether it is infinite or finite.

Don't you think the bubble concept is very speculative? Personally (with no reason to even hint of its reality) I think it seems more like a desperate grabbing at straws. But that's just me. At least back in ancient times when some astronomers proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that other planets might exist out there, they had some observations (such as the moon) with which to make such "wild" claims.

And I ought to add that that is definitely not the definition you were using. If there is at least one infinite entity then "everything that exists" (which must include this entity) is also infinite.

I agree that if there were an infinite entity, then he or it would be part of the "everything" and therefore part of the universe. But with the presupposition that the finite universe proceeded forth from he/it, this would also indicate that before the current finite universe came into being, he/it existed apart from the universe. That would make my reference to this entity separately or prior to the universe, a grammatically accurate one. Also I don't understand why this infinite entities existence within the current universe would necessitate the entire universe be infinite? You lost me on that one.

and I am not convinced because you have to rule out a cyclic relationship where the collective is self-sustaining but none of the entities that make it up are

I would again question the existence of such a "cyclic relationship" on the grounds that there is no observations to even hint of one. But "for the sake of argument" if one such cycle did exist, given that the current observable universe is finite, we would have to impose the reality that this "cycle" would eventually have to break down. Any "loop" with even one deteriorating element is destined to eventual collapse. Such a system would then have hoisted upon it the requirements of a beginning. This would mean that if was not an infinite loop. And that puts us back at square one...what came before the loop? How did the loop begin if there were ever a time in which nothing existed?

Do you see that the existence of anything finite (traced back far enough) logically requires the existence of at least one thing infinite capable of producing the processes that produce the finite thing that exists?

And why, if we accept the possibility of infinite entities could it then be impossible for there to be an infinite number of finite entities ?

The definition of something finite is that it has a beginning or an ending. So wouldn't you say the very definition of "finite" places those constraints?

If we can't work out whether the thing we are detecting is God or not, then how can we know that we've detected God ?And I would regard personality as being more important than being infinite or self-sustaining or even creating our universe.

I agree Paul. Personality is a big defining factor in rather we call this "thing" god or just some impersonal effect like energy. But before we can determine rather a thing has personality or not, wouldn't you agree that we have to first be reasonably convinced of its presence?

Mythology is full of Gods which are finite, not self-sustaining and played little or no role in creating our universe.

Yes but don't you think we could eventually rule out any mythology, if it existed within our concept of who or what god is? For example, as science has progressed, we have ruled out all the old notions that Mars is teaming with aliens just waiting to launch an all out invasion on us unsuspecting earthlings. Mythology about Mars has been slowly replaced with reality about Mars. My point is that just because some truly outrageous myths have existed about god, do not of themselves negate his existence.

In the final analysis, virtually all concepts of god or gods, include an infinite entity, who is self sustaining and the originator of our current universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2010 6:34 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 9:18 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2010 9:28 AM Just being real has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 216 of 271 (576881)
08-26-2010 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
08-26-2010 9:00 AM


bye, bye, first cause.
JBR writes:

In the final analysis, virtually all concepts of god or gods, include an infinite entity, who is self sustaining and the originator of our current universe.

Even though that is not true, (many, maybe even most, religions have gods that are not infinite), even if it was true it is irrelevant.

If we look at the evidence that is available and can be examined what we find is that the cause of something most often does not continue to exist beyond the initial incident. The star that goes nova and produces the heavy elements that in turn make life possible does not continue to exist. The rock that starts a landslide in turn gets pounded into sand and then dust in the very landslide itself. The radioactive elements that cause a nuclear explosion no longer exist and are changed into other elements, heat and energy.

If you want to make some claim of some uncaused first cause, there is still no reason to think that uncaused first cause might still exist and lots of reasons to think that it would be destroyed in the very process of creation.

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 5:57 PM jar has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 217 of 271 (576883)
08-26-2010 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Just being real
08-26-2010 9:00 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
quote:

Don't you think the bubble concept is very speculative? Personally (with no reason to even hint of its reality) I think it seems more like a desperate grabbing at straws. But that's just me. At least back in ancient times when some astronomers proposed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and that other planets might exist out there, they had some observations (such as the moon) with which to make such "wild" claims.

Firstly you must remember that I am NOT saying that there is anything beyond our universe - simply that we do not know. That is hardly speculation. And I don' think that speculations are necessarily "grasping at straws" - you'd have to argue more to make that claim.

quote:

I agree that if there were an infinite entity, then he or it would be part of the "everything" and therefore part of the universe. But with the presupposition that the finite universe proceeded forth from he/it, this would also indicate that before the current finite universe came into being, he/it existed apart from the universe. That would make my reference to this entity separately or prior to the universe, a grammatically accurate one. Also I don't understand why this infinite entities existence within the current universe would necessitate the entire universe be infinite? You lost me on that one.

Firstly if your entity existed prior to our universe it would still be a part of "universe" as you have defined it. And it is obvious that if part of a thing is infinite, the whole must also be infinite. If you define "universe" to mean "everything that exists" the universe can only be finite if there are a finite number of finite entities existing.

quote:

I would again question the existence of such a "cyclic relationship" on the grounds that there is no observations to even hint of one.

In dealing with something so speculative it seems foolish to rule out possibilities just because we have few relevant observations. That seems to me to be nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

quote:

if one such cycle did exist, given that the current observable universe is finite, we would have to impose the reality that this "cycle" would eventually have to break down

No, we would not. Why would we have to ?

quote:

Such a system would then have hoisted upon it the requirements of a beginning. This would mean that if was not an infinite loop. And that puts us back at square one...what came before the loop? How did the loop begin if there were ever a time in which nothing existed?

Ah, so now you are assuming that there was a time when there WAS nothing ? And you assume that your infinite self-sustaining being can come from nothing ? Because if you do not assume that you have just made another non-sequitur.

quote:

Do you see that the existence of anything finite (traced back far enough) logically requires the existence of at least one thing infinite capable of producing the processes that produce the finite thing that exists?

No, I don't. Because it isn't true.

quote:

The definition of something finite is that it has a beginning or an ending. So wouldn't you say the very definition of "finite" places those constraints?

No, it does not. Assuming that you mean temporal infinity (which is far from clear !) then you must also assume that past time is infinite for your argument to work. However it is far from clear that past time is infinite and if it is then our universe must be either temporally infinite in the pastward direction or embedded in a larger spacetime which IS temporally infinite. And so far as I can tell you reject both those options.

quote:

I agree Paul. Personality is a big defining factor in rather we call this "thing" god or just some impersonal effect like energy. But before we can determine rather a thing has personality or not, wouldn't you agree that we have to first be reasonably convinced of its presence?

Fair enough - just don't go calling it "God" until we have got that far.

quote:

Yes but don't you think we could eventually rule out any mythology, if it existed within our concept of who or what god is?

I don't think we can rule out it's relevance to what we consider a god - at least not for a long time to come. It's an essential part of the history of the concept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 9:00 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:27 PM PaulK has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 218 of 271 (576971)
08-26-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jar
08-26-2010 9:18 AM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Even though that is not true, (many, maybe even most, religions have gods that are not infinite), even if it was true it is irrelevant.

Oops, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate... I meant to refer only to the majority of concepts about god, and not to imply that the majority of the conglomeration of all religions hold to this concept. Wouldn't you agree that the majority of this planet's religious population hold to one of the five or six main religions -- which do see their god as an infinite creator of the universe? And thinking about this further wouldn't you agree that this is relevant because if we are going to "detect god" we want to address the major religious populations concept of the term, rather than including all the obscure and less followed beliefs such as Greek mythology etc...?

If we look at the evidence that is available and can be examined what we find is that the cause of something most often does not continue to exist beyond the initial incident. The star that goes nova and produces the heavy elements that in turn make life possible does not continue to exist. The rock that starts a landslide in turn gets pounded into sand and then dust in the very landslide itself. The radioactive elements that cause a nuclear explosion no longer exist and are changed into other elements, heat and energy.

But wouldn't you agree that we are not talking about events that "most often" occur? Rather we are discussing an event that is unique to our universe (its birth). So wouldn't you agree that all of your "most often" events (like rock slides and supernova's) can be traced back to that one unique event? Therefore we have a first cause that we must refer to as the first cause or expansion/big bang of the universe. It seems highly odd to suggest that before this event occurred that there was nothing. Because something can not come from nothing. Therefore it seems more likely to me that something must have always existed. And we call something that always existed, "infinite." And wouldn't you agree that something infinite in nature would logically have to infinitely survive? Even through a finite event like the big bang?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 9:18 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 6:15 PM Just being real has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 219 of 271 (576975)
08-26-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Just being real
08-26-2010 5:57 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Jbr writes:

jar writes:

Even though that is not true, (many, maybe even most, religions have gods that are not infinite), even if it was true it is irrelevant.

Oops, I think what we have here is a failure to communicate... I meant to refer only to the majority of concepts about god, and not to imply that the majority of the conglomeration of all religions hold to this concept. Wouldn't you agree that the majority of this planet's religious population hold to one of the five or six main religions -- which do see their god as an infinite creator of the universe? And thinking about this further wouldn't you agree that this is relevant because if we are going to "detect god" we want to address the major religious populations concept of the term, rather than including all the obscure and less followed beliefs such as Greek mythology etc...?

First, if we are going to detect god it doesn't matter what people believe. The goal has nothing to do with supporting any given belief in god, the goal is to detect god whatever that god turns out to be.

What I or anyone else happen to believe about god has nothing to do with the reality of a GOD.

If there is a GOD then the available evidence is that that GOD will not correspond to anything any human currently thinks is God or anything imagined by any peoples in the past.

Jbr writes:

jar writes:

If we look at the evidence that is available and can be examined what we find is that the cause of something most often does not continue to exist beyond the initial incident. The star that goes nova and produces the heavy elements that in turn make life possible does not continue to exist. The rock that starts a landslide in turn gets pounded into sand and then dust in the very landslide itself. The radioactive elements that cause a nuclear explosion no longer exist and are changed into other elements, heat and energy.

But wouldn't you agree that we are not talking about events that "most often" occur? Rather we are discussing an event that is unique to our universe (its birth). So wouldn't you agree that all of your "most often" events (like rock slides and supernova's) can be traced back to that one unique event? Therefore we have a first cause that we must refer to as the first cause or expansion/big bang of the universe. It seems highly odd to suggest that before this event occurred that there was nothing. Because something can not come from nothing. Therefore it seems more likely to me that something must have always existed. And we call something that always existed, "infinite." And wouldn't you agree that something infinite in nature would logically have to infinitely survive? Even through a finite event like the big bang?

No, I see no reason to think our universe is something exceptional or unusual. This universe is unique to us but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is an unique event. The only thing unique about this universe is that it happens to be the universe we just happen to be in.

No one is suggesting that before the Big Bang there was nothing. What is said is that this universe evolved sometime after the Big Bang.

And why can't something come from nothing?

I also don't see where there is any need to speculate on something that is infinite. Even if there was something that caused the Big Bang there is no reason to suppose that whatever that was survived past the moment of creation, and all of the available evidence supports that position as I explained in the examples I listed.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 5:57 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:50 PM jar has responded
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2010 7:03 PM jar has responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 220 of 271 (576978)
08-26-2010 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by PaulK
08-26-2010 9:28 AM


Re: What counts as detection?
Firstly if your entity existed prior to our universe it would still be a part of "universe" as you have defined it.

Yes but don't you think that since we are discussing the infinite existing prior to the formation of the finite, that it is just easier to differentiate when we refer to the "universe," by meaning the finite portion of everything, rather than the infinite and the finite combined? If this is a stumbling block for you we do not need to define it this way. I was just trying to keep things easier is all.

In dealing with something so speculative it seems foolish to rule out possibilities just because we have few relevant observations. That seems to me to be nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Well, if we don't try and partly anchor our speculations in some observation, we end up chasing flying spaghetti monsters like my good buddy Dawkins. And reaching for the ridiculous like that is not very helpful in these kinds of discussions. So based on observation, "something finite" requires an origin from something else. But no observation even on a small scale shows how a cycle of anything with finite components can exist in an infinite amount of space or time. The closest thing I could think of would be the cycle of life having existed and perpetuated for a very long time on some accounts, but even so most of all life forms to have ever existed on earth have gone extinct.

This seems to demonstrate my point that no process (regardless of how strong it is) can survive with one of its links being finite. Lets face it...no matter how strong a tire we buy, if it has a small leak it will eventually go flat. I am not assuming there was ever a time when there was nothing, I am just saying finite things can not logically occupy infinite space or time. Therefore I can only logically conclude that, there must have been a time when only something infinite existed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 08-26-2010 9:28 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by PaulK, posted 08-27-2010 2:08 AM Just being real has responded
 Message 230 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2010 9:46 AM Just being real has responded

    
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 221 of 271 (576981)
08-26-2010 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
08-26-2010 6:15 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
First, if we are going to detect god it doesn't matter what people believe. The goal has nothing to do with supporting any given belief in god, the goal is to detect god whatever that god turns out to be.

Yes but don't you think the definition that most people hold to when discussing god, is relevant with what to look for when trying to see if we can detect any entities out there that match that description?

No, I see no reason to think our universe is something exceptional or unusual. This universe is unique to us but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is an unique event.

This is true but the very meaning of the word "unique" implies what is unusual to the human experience. Perhaps there are some 200 trillion year old aliens out there some where that have experienced the birth and death of finite universes many times and to them it is not unique at all. But to us what is unique is that which is unusual to our experience. And so far we are only acquainted with the formation of the one finite universe. We are however acquainted with several supernova's and many rock slides.

And why can't something come from nothing?

I am basing this statement on the fact that so far this has never been observed occurring. The closest thing to this being possible is in quantum fluctuations at a sub atomic level, particles appear to be coming form nothing, but we are talking about theoretical particles not actually observed ones, and even if these particles are real, this is still occurring in a currently physical finite universe where there are already existing laws of physics in place. So I seriously doubt that this is hope that whole universes could appear from nothing. But that's just me.

I also don't see where there is any need to speculate on something that is infinite. Even if there was something that caused the Big Bang there is no reason to suppose that whatever that was survived past the moment of creation, and all of the available evidence supports that position as I explained in the examples I listed.

You don't see the destruction of something infinite as an oxymoron?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 6:15 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 7:07 PM Just being real has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15984
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 222 of 271 (576984)
08-26-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by jar
08-26-2010 6:15 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
First, if we are going to detect god it doesn't matter what people believe. The goal has nothing to do with supporting any given belief in god, the goal is to detect god whatever that god turns out to be.

Yes, but you have to have some sort of definition in mind, otherwise how would you know if you had detected it?

Suppose I ask you whether you own a snubruth. "What's a snubruth?" you ask me. "I'm not going to tell you", say I.

Then the question is going to remain permanently open. You might have a dozen snubruths, and you'd never know it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 6:15 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 7:13 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 223 of 271 (576988)
08-26-2010 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Just being real
08-26-2010 6:50 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
Jbr writes:

jar writes:

First, if we are going to detect god it doesn't matter what people believe. The goal has nothing to do with supporting any given belief in god, the goal is to detect god whatever that god turns out to be.

Yes but don't you think the definition that most people hold to when discussing god, is relevant with what to look for when trying to see if we can detect any entities out there that match that description?

No, not at all. What anyone believes is irrelevant when it comes to the reality of something.

Jbr writes:

jar writes:

No, I see no reason to think our universe is something exceptional or unusual. This universe is unique to us but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is an unique event.

This is true but the very meaning of the word "unique" implies what is unusual to the human experience. Perhaps there are some 200 trillion year old aliens out there some where that have experienced the birth and death of finite universes many times and to them it is not unique at all. But to us what is unique is that which is unusual to our experience. And so far we are only acquainted with the formation of the one finite universe. We are however acquainted with several supernova's and many rock slides.

We so far have a sample of only one universe, but when we look at the universe we do know, what we find is that very few things are singular. We only have experience of one sun, but we know it is not unique beyond being the sun we know. We have experience of only one solar system but we know it is not unique beyond being the solar system we live in. There are many, many other solar systems out there. And as you point out, we know of many novas and floods and rock slides and as a matter of fact, the preponderance of evidence is that is that things are not unique.

Jbr writes:

jar writes:

And why can't something come from nothing?

I am basing this statement on the fact that so far this has never been observed occurring. The closest thing to this being possible is in quantum fluctuations at a sub atomic level, particles appear to be coming form nothing, but we are talking about theoretical particles not actually observed ones, and even if these particles are real, this is still occurring in a currently physical finite universe where there are already existing laws of physics in place. So I seriously doubt that this is hope that whole universes could appear from nothing. But that's just me.

Really? Have you kept up with the products and findings of the several super colliders? We have far more evidence there then we have of some god.

Jbr writes:

jar writes:

I also don't see where there is any need to speculate on something that is infinite. Even if there was something that caused the Big Bang there is no reason to suppose that whatever that was survived past the moment of creation, and all of the available evidence supports that position as I explained in the examples I listed.

You don't see the destruction of something infinite as an oxymoron?

I still have not seen any evidence of something that is infinite or even any need for such a thing. Is there any reason that it can't just be turtles all the way down?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 6:50 PM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by Just being real, posted 08-26-2010 11:26 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 224 of 271 (576990)
08-26-2010 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dr Adequate
08-26-2010 7:03 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
We can use and quite frankly discard almost every definition of god that man has come up with. And that is what the process has been historically, someone presents a definition and that definition gets tested.

"Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin"

So the most likely outcome is just that, people propose a god and after testing the response will be, "Nope, that god don't hunt."


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-26-2010 7:03 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2010 12:40 AM jar has responded
 Message 261 by Phat, posted 11-18-2017 2:45 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 1548 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 225 of 271 (577040)
08-26-2010 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by jar
08-26-2010 7:07 PM


Re: bye, bye, first cause.
No, not at all. What anyone believes is irrelevant when it comes to the reality of something.

Look at it this way. If I define a beast as some hideous 12 foot creature that walks up right like a man but has the head of a huge wolf, and that feeds on unsuspecting joggers in the woods, then my search for such an animal like that will probably not be very successful. However if I define it as any large hairy animal that is a meat eater, and occasionally stands up-right like a man, then I have just described a bear. A search for a "beast" like that would then probably be very successful.

Likewise if we don't have a general definition of what god is, before we go looking for him, we may over look what is real because we are looking for the myth. So even though our beliefs do not effect what is real, I personally think our definition of what we are looking for, effects what we accept as its fulfillment. It may very well be that that definition of god does not exist at all, and what ever is out there is yet un-titled, and wouldn't even be classed as "god." That wouldn't change its reality one way or the other. But in this thread we are trying to detect "god." Therefore what most people define as god, does seem to be an important factor in our search.

And as you point out, we know of many novas and floods and rock slides and as a matter of fact, the preponderance of evidence is that is that things are not unique.

Yes, but again, the definition of something unique, is that which is unusual to the human experience. All of those other things you list are easily observed many times and therefore are not considered unusual to the human experience. But the same can not be said for the formation of the universe. We do not observe even one other universe being formed anywhere and therefore this one, is unique (unusual to the human experience). It is not logical to say that because there are many grains of sand on a beach that there must be many universes. We would have to observe at least one other one in order to make such a conclusion.

Really? Have you kept up with the products and findings of the several super colliders? We have far more evidence there then we have of some god.

No actually its been a couple of years for me since I studied the whole quantum particles thing. Do you have a link that could catch me up on it?

I still have not seen any evidence of something that is infinite or even any need for such a thing. Is there any reason that it can't just be turtles all the way down?

I'm sorry my friend. You lost me with the "turtles" thing. It's probably just a joke I'm not privy to. I guess I don't communicate this very well. Let me try it again. I'm saying that if it is true that something can not come from nothing (and so far I am unfamiliar with anything that says it can) then since something now exists, this requires that something always has existed. The key word here is "always." Because if there were ever a time when there was nothing, and something can not come from nothing, then there would still only be nothing.

Secondly, if the observable universe is finite (most scientists agree that it is) then that means it had a beginning, and will likely have an eventual ending. This requires that something preceded the current universe and that this universe be the product of whatever that something is. Now at this point we can say another universe might have preceded this one to which was preceded by another and another. But since we are discussing finite matter, there must eventually be a beginning point to it all. So rather you espouse a multi-universe theory, or believe this is the first, you still end up with something being required to exist to get it all started. And that something must have always existed.

We define something that has always existed as infinite in nature. Therefore the existence of the finite, logically requires...no demands...the existence of the infinite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jar, posted 08-26-2010 7:07 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by jar, posted 08-27-2010 9:44 AM Just being real has not yet responded
 Message 236 by onifre, posted 08-27-2010 5:15 PM Just being real has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
16171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017