Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8819 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-23-2018 1:00 AM
317 online now:
A Certain Cyborg, Coyote, DrJones*, PaulK (4 members, 313 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 826,070 Year: 893/29,783 Month: 893/1,849 Week: 101/324 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Author Topic:   Who Made God?
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1830
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 286 of 369 (826820)
01-10-2018 6:08 PM


Thread Moved from Coffee House Forum
Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

Shoulda done this five years ago. Please forgive my initial tampering with my own thread.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by xongsmith, posted 01-10-2018 6:09 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1832
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 287 of 369 (826821)
01-10-2018 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by AdminPhat
01-10-2018 6:08 PM


Re: Thread Moved from Coffee House Forum
where did it go?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by AdminPhat, posted 01-10-2018 6:08 PM AdminPhat has not yet responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1091
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 288 of 369 (826822)
01-10-2018 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by ICANT
01-10-2018 4:29 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
My problem with that is that there are certain assumptions that must be accepted (believed happened) in order for the BBT to describe what happened after T=10-43 s.
Some facts would be great to base things on that assumptions.
Do you have any?

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. For example regarding assumptions, the Big Bang theory predicts present effects as evidence of a past event, the same as any historical theory. e.g. the theory that the an old tower collapsed would predict that you would see debris from the tower on the ground.
There isn't really any assumptions.

Are you asking for the observational evidence for the Big Bang?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by ICANT, posted 01-10-2018 4:29 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by NoNukes, posted 01-10-2018 8:40 PM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM Son Goku has responded
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 3:16 AM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10221
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 289 of 369 (826826)
01-10-2018 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Son Goku
01-10-2018 6:20 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
There isn't really any assumptions.

By assumptions, some people might mean the following:

The laws of science were the same back in the day.
The earth did not open up and swallow up all of the tower pieces leaving no evidence.
There was no huge flood that covered the earth 6000 years ago.
No magical force was involved.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Son Goku, posted 01-10-2018 6:20 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5686
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 290 of 369 (826827)
01-11-2018 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Son Goku
01-10-2018 6:20 PM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
Hi Son,

Son writes:

Are you asking for the observational evidence for the Big Bang?

There was no one around to observe anything so that is out of the question.

You say the BBT makes predictions. These are devised from the assumption made by men.

The BBT has 20 problems that would disqualify any other theory.
Man, Alan Guth tried to to fix these problems with his inflation hypothesis.

Sir Roger Penrose says inflation is a fantasy.

The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10-43 s.

No one knows what or if anything existed at T=10-43 s.
Since no one knows what was there or if anything was there how can anyone know what took place?

So you and others want me to believe that something began to expand at T=10-43 s. But I can't question how that something got there in order to begin to expand. How did that something begin to exist anyway? It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.

I would call anything that could create the universe and everything in it God.

We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed.
2 The universe began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God.

#1 is impossible as the universe would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Son Goku, posted 01-10-2018 6:20 PM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 3:11 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 293 by jar, posted 01-11-2018 6:36 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply
 Message 295 by Stile, posted 01-11-2018 11:48 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 296 by Son Goku, posted 01-11-2018 3:46 PM ICANT has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10437
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 291 of 369 (826829)
01-11-2018 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-11-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
I CANT writes:

We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed.
2 The universe began to exist where there was non-existence.
3. The universe was created by an all-powerful eternal God.

#1 is impossible as the universe would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.

To be fair, Son Goku may argue that there are more than these 3 choices. I would be interested to hear his informed opinion, based on what he knows.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 8:00 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 302 by jar, posted 01-11-2018 8:52 PM Phat has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10437
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 292 of 369 (826830)
01-11-2018 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Son Goku
01-10-2018 6:20 PM


Boom Goes The Dynamite
Are you asking for the observational evidence for the Big Bang?
I'm more interested in whether the BBT is the prevailing theory among Cosmologists or whether any competing theories have arisen.

Despite being a believer in God, I fully understand why God does not count among the theories presented by science. And as you know, I respect that you take time to talk with us here. Science is honest enough to admit what it does not know and explain what it does know.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Son Goku, posted 01-10-2018 6:20 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 01-11-2018 4:55 PM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29918
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 293 of 369 (826833)
01-11-2018 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-11-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:

It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.

Again, utter nonsense.

Why would some cause need to have existed eternally or created by some external thing with a lot of power.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2733
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 294 of 369 (826835)
01-11-2018 10:37 AM


Given the way the Winchester gospels are going (tv show supernatural), it seems we finally get to find out who made god and his sister, the nothing creature thingy that sent castiell back from nothing.

and we know the Winchester gospels are the word of god because god himself wrote them, and we know that from the Winchester gospels so its bassicaly just like the bible.


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.


    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3067
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 295 of 369 (826838)
01-11-2018 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-11-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
ICANT writes:

Since no one knows what was there or if anything was there how can anyone know what took place?

Because of what we see now.

If I see a dead tree in a forest, I know that tree grew from a much smaller beginning many years ago.
I didn't have to see that tree start growing in person.
I know this from observing similar things I can see today and understanding how plant growth in general works.

If scientists see the remnants of the BBT, they know that the BB occurred many years ago.
They don't have to see the BB start expanding in person.
They know this from observing similar things they can see today and understanding how cosmology in general works.

So you and others want me to believe that something began to expand at T=10-43 s. But I can't question how that something got there in order to begin to expand.

Why can't you question it?

I question it.

How did that something begin to exist anyway?

I don't know.

But just because I don't know... and because science doesn't know (yet) doesn't mean you can't question it.
Questioning it is exactly what scientists studying it are doing, even.

They're just not going to offer up any old idea as an answer without proper evidence to back it up, is all.

Because of that restriction, I don't think a solid answer for your question is available from science at this time.

It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.

I don't see why that would be true at all.

It seems like you're making a claim without backing it up.

I would call anything that could create the universe and everything in it God.

Well, that seems like an arbitrary decision.
I would not do such a thing.

People used to call the sun a God because they thought it was big and powerful.
The sun is not a God.

You seem to want to call 'anything that could create the universe and everything in it' God because you think such a thing would need to be big and powerful.

I don't see why it would have to be big or powerful.
But, even if it was, I don't see why we should call it God anyway. Especially if it's a natural process and has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or will.

We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed. - impossible as the universe would be dead.
2. The universe began to exist where there was non existence. - impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God. - is the only logical choice

1 - Why would the universe be dead if it always existed?
Don't you believe in a God that always existed? Does that mean your God is dead?
If not, why is this limitation placed on the universe but not God?

2 - Why can't existence begin to exist?
It seems to me you simply cannot fathom existence beginning to exist. I have a hard time doing it myself.
But many things occur without my ability to fathom them. I'm not that smart.
Maybe existence beginning to exist is something that happens that I (and you) simply cannot fathom.
Unless you have an actual reason? - I'm pretty sure we've had entire threads devoted to you trying to explain a reason, and you've never been able to do so.

3 - But you haven't eliminated the other options. You just seem to claim that they are eliminated.
I agree that if I take your word for it... then 3 is the only number left after removing 1 and 2. But there are problems... there doesn't seem to be any actual reason to remove 1 or 2 other than your say-so. Your say-so isn't very convincing. Also, what about additional options:

4 - The universe always existed in the past, but will not always exist in the future.

5 - The universe began to exist from something else that already existed.

6 - The universe was created by a weak, eternal God.

7 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), eternal God.

8 - The universe was created by a weak, non-eternal God.

9 - The universe was created by a very powerful (just not all-powerful), non-eternal God.

10 - The universe was created by entirely natural processes and no God of any sort was involved in any way.

11 - Something else that Stile or ICANT cannot fathom.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 10:38 PM Stile has responded

    
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1091
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 296 of 369 (826842)
01-11-2018 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by ICANT
01-11-2018 3:00 AM


Re: Eternal power (energy)
There was no one around to observe anything so that is out of the question.

Observational evidence refers to measurable side effects in the present, not eye witness accounts.

You say the BBT makes predictions. These are devised from the assumption made by men.

To the first sentence, yes I am saying that. I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence means. If you mean we assume what the past might have been like, derive present consequences of that and then see if they are true, then yes.

The BBT has 20 problems that would disqualify any other theory.

Such as?

The biggest assumption of all is that the universe began to expand at T=10-43 s

It doesn't assume that.

So you and others want me to believe that something began to expand at T=10-43 s

I don't want you to believe that as it is not what the Big Bang theory states.

How did that something begin to exist anyway? It had to be eternal in existence of it had to be created by an eternal existence with a lot of power.

I would call anything that could create the universe and everything in it God.

We have 3 choices.
1. The universe has always existed.
2 The universe began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The universe was created by an all powerful eternal God.

#1 is impossible as the universe would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.


These sound like questions one would ask of a theory that purports to explain the origins of reality, which the Big Bang theory is not. The Big Bang theory is a theory about the state of the observable universe 13.7 billion years ago.

The Big Bang theory is not about how the universe began or how things originated or how reality started. It is simply a historical claim about the observable universe.
Stop and think about what this means.

If I had a theory that a volcano erupted on an island 3,000 years ago and I worked out as a consequence that the soil should contain, say 12.6% calcium. A valid criticism of the theory would be:
(a) Measurement of the soil contains 13.4% calcium
(b) Sea deposits may have left the calcium.

Invalid methods of criticism would be to say:
We have 3 choices.
1. The volcano has always existed.
2 The volcano began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The volcano was created by an all powerful eternal God.

#1 is impossible as the volcano would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.

Similarly with the Big Bang theory. It is not a theory about the ultimate origins of the world, hence criticisms about an origins theory are irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by ICANT, posted 01-11-2018 3:00 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 2:04 AM Son Goku has not yet responded
 Message 310 by ICANT, posted 01-12-2018 1:49 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7313
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 297 of 369 (826844)
01-11-2018 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Phat
01-11-2018 3:16 AM


Re: Boom Goes The Dynamite
Phat writes:

I'm more interested in whether the BBT is the prevailing theory among Cosmologists or whether any competing theories have arisen.

From my understanding, the BBT is the prevailing theory for explain a whole host of observations as it relates to the last 13.7 billion year history of our universe. However, the BBT isn't a theory that tries to explain the origin of our universe, only how it has changed over those 13.7 billion years.

Science is honest enough to admit what it does not know and explain what it does know.

Science is also a methodological approach to gaining knowledge and not an ontological one. It isn't as concerned with conclusion as it is with how you reach those conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 3:16 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 5:09 PM Taq has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10437
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 298 of 369 (826847)
01-11-2018 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Taq
01-11-2018 4:55 PM


Re: Boom Goes The Dynamite
In other words, content is more pertinent than source. Right?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Taq, posted 01-11-2018 4:55 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 01-11-2018 5:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7313
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 299 of 369 (826848)
01-11-2018 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Phat
01-11-2018 5:09 PM


Re: Boom Goes The Dynamite
Phat writes:

In other words, content is more pertinent than source. Right?

I wouldn't phrase it that way at all. Content doesn't matter at all. Source is everything. Where and how you got your answer is way more important than the answer itself. It's similar to a teacher not giving credit for a math test answer because the student didn't show their work.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Phat, posted 01-11-2018 5:09 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Son Goku, posted 01-11-2018 7:28 PM Taq has responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1091
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 300 of 369 (826850)
01-11-2018 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Taq
01-11-2018 5:32 PM


Re: Boom Goes The Dynamite
Where and how you got your answer is way more important than the answer itself.

In physics at least, people would view the answer as more important, just that the where and how must be sound. The answer is people's main motivation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Taq, posted 01-11-2018 5:32 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Taq, posted 01-12-2018 3:31 PM Son Goku has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1819
20
2122
...
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018