Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8779 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-18-2017 6:11 PM
358 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: BruceR.Fenton
Post Volume:
Total: 816,368 Year: 20,974/21,208 Month: 1,407/2,326 Week: 743/345 Day: 105/161 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
333435Next
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 466 of 511 (773806)
12-09-2015 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by ICANT
12-09-2015 4:04 AM


1. The universe has not existed eternally in the past. If it did it would have been dead a long time ago as there would be no useable energy left as energy can not be created or destroyed.

Your argument does not tell us how energy could ever be lost regardless of how long the universe existed. If energy cannot be destroyed, it cannot be used up simply by the passage of time. So you need to make an argument based on the second law of thermodynamics rather than on the first law. I see a half-baked attempt to do exactly that, but the problem with such an argument is that nobody knows whether or not such an argument is correct.

4. Since energy is required to produce the mass that makes up everything in the universe that energy had to be supplied by some means.

Sure, now what is the total amount of energy in the universe including all of the mass, kinetic and gravitational potential energy? What if I told you that the total amount of energy is something close to zero?

There are two number 4 answers, but the second number is moot in view of the answer above.

5. Non existence can not produce anything.

Why don't you prove that statement to be true? Perhaps it is not.

7. Since the universe ... could not have existed eternally in the past, the universe had a beginning to exist.

I don't believe the universe existed eternally in the past, but you have not managed to show any such thing.

In my opinion, it is impossible to demonstrate scientifically the existence or non-existence of God. The existence of God is simply outside of the realm of scientific inquiry. Accordingly, any attempts to use scientific reasoning to demonstrate God or the supernatural must fail. Now, while the above is simply my own understanding, it is the case that your argument is full of holes and seems to confirm my understanding.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


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

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by ICANT, posted 12-09-2015 4:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 1:41 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7415
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 467 of 511 (773861)
12-10-2015 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by ICANT
12-09-2015 4:04 AM


Since energy is required to produce the mass that makes up everything in the universe that energy had to be supplied by some means.

Your argument for the supernatural basis of religion relies on this. I argued earlier that this is not necessarily true. The universe may have a finite past but it has existed for all time and there was therefore no prior time to the universe from which anything can supply it. The energy simply exists, it didn't pop into existence, it just exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by ICANT, posted 12-09-2015 4:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 11:33 AM Modulous has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 468 of 511 (773882)
12-10-2015 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Modulous
12-10-2015 4:35 AM


Hi Mod,

Mod writes:

The energy simply exists, it didn't pop into existence, it just exists.

That statement would require that energy existed eternally in the past.

If the energy existed eternally in the past, why did it wait so long to create the universe?

Better yet what caused it to start the process of creating the universe.

But wouldn't that mean that the energy exists outside of the universe? You have told me several times in the past that there is nothing outside the universe, as it is self contained.

I have been told on this web site in no uncertain terms that there is nothing outside of the universe. If that is true your energy could not just exist.

The energy just existing would require some place to exist, where did it exist? The universe did not exist.

I believe that energy did exist. That is the reason I believe in a Supernatural power that supplied the energy required to create the universe we live in.

The alternative is unthinkable. Existence beginning to exist from non existence.

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 467 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2015 4:35 AM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2015 12:59 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 480 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2015 2:40 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 469 of 511 (773886)
12-10-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 464 by Admin
12-09-2015 8:50 AM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Hi Admin,

I am sorry that my mind does not run in the same ruts that yours and others here does.

The statements are:

Mass has a pull on mass.

Mass warps space-time.

That warped space-time then causes gravity to work. The trampoline and ball example is then used to support that concept.

I just spent the better part of an hour staring at a little ball running around a vortex caused by the earth warping space-time here. http://www.spaceplace.nasa.gov/what-is-gravity/en/

My mind may be what is warped but I see a problem with the example.

The mass of the earth would have to exert the same effect on all of space-time that surrounds the earth. Which would nullify any effect on the little ball as there would be no indention towards the earth in which the ball could fall towards the earth.

That is the reason I have used the example several times that the mass in space-time would be like a fish in water. The mass would only displace space-time where it exists. Therefore there would be no curvature of space-time as presented.

That brings us back to mass exerting pull on mass. Which means some kind of unknown energy (for a better word) operating in mysterious ways.

Now if I am misunderstanding the effect of mass on space-time maybe someone would explain to me how the trampoline or sheet effect could be true.

As always I believe it is all controlled by laws that the Supernatural power put into effect upon creation of the universe and everything in it.

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 464 by Admin, posted 12-09-2015 8:50 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 12:14 PM ICANT has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 470 of 511 (773889)
12-10-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 469 by ICANT
12-10-2015 12:05 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Hi ICANT,

Do you believe gravity or the origin of the universe are key to making your case for the supernatural? If not, please drop these topics, it isn't worth the time it is obviously going to take for you and everyone else to reach some common ground of understanding.

But if these topics are important to making your case then please continue, but first please explain how, because I don't yet see any connection.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 469 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 12:05 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 471 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 12:53 PM Admin has responded
 Message 473 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2015 1:03 PM Admin has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 471 of 511 (773890)
12-10-2015 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Admin
12-10-2015 12:14 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Hi Admin,

Admin writes:

Do you believe gravity or the origin of the universe are key to making your case for the supernatural?

The origin of the universe has everything to do with any argument for the Supernatural Power I call God. Either the origin of the universe is supernatural or a natural accident, or occurrence if you prefer.

The workings of the universe such as gravity has everything to do with either a supernatural power or a natural power. Either gravity is an accident, or natural occurrence if you prefer, or it is a planned event by a supernatural power.

Everything is controlled by a supernatural power or a natural power and that is what we have been discussing in this thread.

This is the original question I have been trying to answer that GIA asked.

quote:
Do you think Gods are manmade or do you believe in a supernatural God? Message 1

Why do you think that way?


I believe in a supernatural power which I call God.
I believe the origin of the universe is the best argument for a supernatural power. That is the reason I have presented the things I have in this thread.

I presented what I would be arguing in Message 46 concerning the origin of the universe that I believe requires a Supernatural Power for the universe to have a beginning to exist.

If the universe had no beginning to exist which is the standard theory I am wasting our time. At present there is no other theory. There are a couple of hypothesis that have been put forth which have more problems than the standard theory. Even though they are proposed in order to do away with the problems of the standard theory.

If the universe has eternally existed then I need to change my argumentation.

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 470 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 12:14 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 1:32 PM ICANT has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7415
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 472 of 511 (773891)
12-10-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by ICANT
12-10-2015 11:33 AM


That statement would require that energy existed eternally in the past.

It only requires that energy exists for all of time, which is the model I am using. You are still stuck in a false dichotomy, you have been stuck in it since you joined this forum. This is a third option.

If the energy existed eternally in the past, why did it wait so long to create the universe?

Why did God, in your model?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 11:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7415
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 473 of 511 (773892)
12-10-2015 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 470 by Admin
12-10-2015 12:14 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Do you believe gravity or the origin of the universe are key to making your case for the supernatural?

The Cosmological Argument goes back at least to Aristotle's First Cause or Prime Mover.

quote:
William Lane Craig gives this argument in the following general form:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Craig explains by nature of the event (the Universe coming into existence) attributes unique to (the concept of) God must also be attributed to the cause of this event including, but not limited to: omnipotence, Creator, being eternal and absolute self-sufficiency. Since, these attributes are unique to God anything with these attributes must be God. Something does have these attributes: the cause; hence, the cause is God, the cause exists; hence, God exists.


From Wiki. This is more or less the argument that ICANT is using.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 470 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 12:14 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Greatest I am, posted 12-10-2015 1:26 PM Modulous has responded
 Message 481 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 2:45 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1385
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 474 of 511 (773898)
12-10-2015 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by Modulous
12-10-2015 1:03 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Modulous

So you are saying that cause and effect are real except in the case of God even though no God has ever been proven to exist.
That does not seem to be quite an honest way to think.

One could then also say that there was a mother and father God and Goddess who gave birth to your God.

Better to be honest and like science, end with a God of the Gaps instead of just an imaginary construct created out of your denial of cause and effect in the case of your God.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2015 1:03 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by Modulous, posted 12-10-2015 2:06 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 475 of 511 (773899)
12-10-2015 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by ICANT
12-10-2015 12:53 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
ICANT writes:

The workings of the universe such as gravity has everything to do with either a supernatural power or a natural power. Either gravity is an accident, or natural occurrence if you prefer, or it is a planned event by a supernatural power.

I'm going to have to ask you to make progress on your view that gravity has a supernatural origin or drop it. Your current approach of arguing that science is wrong does not appear to be an argument for the supernatural. If you think it is then please explain.

I presented what I would be arguing in Message 46 concerning the origin of the universe that I believe requires a Supernatural Power for the universe to have a beginning to exist.

Message 46 is a statement of belief. You've been arguing that the scientific explanations for the origin of the universe are wrong in some way. Are you arguing that if science is wrong therefore the supernatural exists? If so then please explain the logic. If your position is something else then please explain.

My main concern is keeping the thread on topic about whether there's a supernatural. Given that the history of science is full of mistakes it seems to me that whether science is at the moment right or wrong about gravity or cosmology is beside the point when it comes to the supernatural, but I would be happy to entertain arguments that that's not true.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 12:53 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 1:53 PM Admin has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 476 of 511 (773900)
12-10-2015 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 466 by NoNukes
12-09-2015 12:29 PM


Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

Your argument does not tell us how energy could ever be lost regardless of how long the universe existed. If energy cannot be destroyed, it cannot be used up simply by the passage of time.

As energy is changed from one form to another entropy takes place and some of the energy becomes unavailable to do work..

Over enough duration of existence entropy would cause all the energy in the universe to become unavailable to do work. and the universe would die a cold death.

NoNukes writes:

Sure, now what is the total amount of energy in the universe including all of the mass, kinetic and gravitational potential energy? What if I told you that the total amount of energy is something close to zero?

I would say you had been reading Alan Guth or listening to someone who had.

Has his hypothesis reached a consensus yet? Better yet is there any evidence for such a hypothesis?

NoNukes writes:

Why don't you prove that statement to be true? Perhaps it is not.

Why don't you prove it to be false?

There have been millions of dollars spent trying to produce life from non life and no one has to date produced life from non life.

Producing existence from non existence is a whole different ball game. Those who have been trying to produce life from non life have been using chemicals to produce life. Take away their chemicals, their tools and their lab even themselves the universe and everything else and produce existence from non existence.

The following is a Ancient Greek argument.

quote:
1. What is is, and what is not is not.
2. What is not doesn’t exist. If it did, it would exist.
3. What is cannot come from, or go to, what is not.
4. Accordingly, what is must have always been what is.

Existence from non existence reminds me of a story about God and a scientist walking along talking about making mankind. God said to the scientist I made mankind out of dirt. The scientist said, no problem I can do the same and reached down and got a hand full of dirt. God said wait a minute you can't take my dirt and make your man. You have to provide your own dirt. That would be existence from non existence.

NoNukes writes:

I don't believe the universe existed eternally in the past, but you have not managed to show any such thing.

The universe is not a cold dead entity which is proof enough that the universe has not always existed. If you disagree with entropy please explain why?

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 466 by NoNukes, posted 12-09-2015 12:29 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by NoNukes, posted 12-10-2015 7:31 PM ICANT has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 5625
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 477 of 511 (773902)
12-10-2015 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Admin
12-10-2015 1:32 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
Hi Admin,

Admin writes:

Are you arguing that if science is wrong therefore the supernatural exists? If so then please explain the logic. If your position is something else then please explain.

I am arguing that if the present scientific view as presented at EvC is correct then there can be no supernatural anything.

So for any argumentation for a Supernatural Power to exist stands in direct opposition to the EvC scientific view.

Both can not be correct.

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 475 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 1:32 PM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 479 by Admin, posted 12-10-2015 2:26 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7415
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 478 of 511 (773903)
12-10-2015 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Greatest I am
12-10-2015 1:26 PM


oops
So you are saying that cause and effect are real except in the case of God even though no God has ever been proven to exist.

I am neither ICANT, Aristotle nor William Lane Craig.

I was saying that they used or are using the cosmological argument to argue in favour of the existence of God and that therefore the cosmological argument should be considered on topic for discussion, though progress is not expected.

The model of the universe I am arguing with ICANT is a godless universe which does not have a cause.

That does not seem to be quite an honest way to think.

You should employ the principle of charity more regularly and you might avoid making mistakes of this degree in the future.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Greatest I am, posted 12-10-2015 1:26 PM Greatest I am has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12523
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 479 of 511 (773904)
12-10-2015 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by ICANT
12-10-2015 1:53 PM


Re: Moderator Provided Information
ICANT writes:

I am arguing that if the present scientific view as presented at EvC is correct then there can be no supernatural anything.

I don't think anyone here in this thread is arguing that science rules out the supernatural. If that is your argument then I think most here would disagree with you, but you're more than welcome to make that argument. If you or anyone has been pursuing that line of argument then I somehow missed it.

So for any argumentation for a Supernatural Power to exist stands in direct opposition to the EvC scientific view.

I don't think there's just one EvC scientific view on anything, let alone the topics in this thread. If there's someone in this thread you're arguing against then please direct your arguments to them.

This conversation is just going on and on with no sign of resolution, each response from you changes the subject, so I'm going to bring this to a close now. I will be enforcing the Forum Guidelines, which include staying on topic and moving discussion constructively forward.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 1:53 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7415
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 480 of 511 (773906)
12-10-2015 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 468 by ICANT
12-10-2015 11:33 AM


I have an alternative wording that may or may not help. The model I am describing Spacetime is synonymous with existence.

Speculating about things that are outside of existence is literally speculating on the non-existent.

Existence didn't come from some place or time. You can't talk of some place of infinite energy or power outside of existence that must be in order to create existence. It by definition does not exist. In this philosophical model, based on general relativity cosmology.

That statement would require that energy existed eternally in the past.

Existence has a finite past.

The energy just existing would require some place to exist, where did it exist? The universe did not exist.

Existence has never not existed. The energy exists. It has a finite history. Energy exists throughout space and time in varying concentrations.

The statement 'the universe did not exist' makes as much sense as 'existence did not exist'. Such a state has never existed, nor could it - by definition.

The same shields and foils you use can be deployed against your own model showing that the 'supernatural' hypothesis has no merits above the 'natural' one.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by ICANT, posted 12-10-2015 11:33 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 488 by ICANT, posted 12-14-2015 12:11 PM Modulous has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
3031
32
333435Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017