Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Big Bang...How Did it Happen?
General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 377 of 414 (143967)
09-22-2004 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by crashfrog
09-22-2004 2:21 AM


Because it's not a law. You're overreaching to call it a law. It's not even something you've substantiated with evidence; there's simply an observation that some things follow causality, and other things do not appear to.
The vast majority of evidence shows that it appears to be true. Only recently has there been QM which seems to contradict it. Why does Darth Mal say I just "made this law up?" This has been around for thousands of years.
In the past when effects appeared to have no causes, it was later discovered that they DID have causes. Once again we have QM, which seems to have no causes - doesn't it seem likely that we will eventually discover what causes it? Especially since it has some huge flaws in it?
Doesn't the fact that the vast majority of things follow causality suggest that QM does too, but we just can't detect it? The fact that QM is also incomplete in explaining our universe suggests that something is wrong with it - perhaps there is underlying theory that causes the effects in QM. I mentioned an article exploring this in the magazine Scientific American, which no one has commented on, and mentioned how a more cause-effect "classical" theory can give rise to QM, which no one commented on except to squabble about how I used the word classical.
I also mentioned how in the past all scientific evidence pointed to there being no cause for certain phenomena, and how this was later proven wrong, and how this is exactly like the situation we find ourslves in with QM.
I am trying to debate the evidence against causality - but so far no one has replied to the challenges against QM I have mentioned.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 2:21 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 10:53 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 378 of 414 (143969)
09-22-2004 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by sidelined
09-22-2004 8:32 AM


Sidelined,
I think I remember from some other threads that you are the one who says that God cannot be trancendent above his creation, the universe, because he still has to follow certain laws that apply to both him and the universe. Maybe this will help - God does not have to follow certain "laws" that are higher than him - those laws are incorporated into Himself in what is his "nature." God cannot violate his own nature, and thus he always follow those "laws," which are really just his own nature. His nature is the source of all the rest of the laws that guide the universe, like the law of non-contradiction, etc.
But in addition to the his own nature God created other laws that guide our universe, laws he does not have to follow, such as time. Maybe God has his own "time" of sorts, but he is not bound by the time of our universe.
If he does not change then he cannot by any means alter the place in which he lives.
1. How does moving from one room to another change who I am?
2. God does not live in the universe - he is outside of it.
Any action he would commence would involve change since,presumably,he ia all there is then.
Yes, there was a change - but not to him.
How does something that never began ever progress from an infinite past to reach our present day without a beginning?
God created our time, and he can reach it quite easily... I'm not exactly following you here could you elaborate a little?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 8:32 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 11:14 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 386 of 414 (144544)
09-24-2004 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by crashfrog
09-22-2004 10:53 PM


QM is the most accurate theory we've ever devised in terms of how well the predictions from the math line up with the real world. If there's a conflict between QM and any other theories, odds are, it's the other theory that has the fatal flaw.
Yes, I know this, but there is still something wrong with it! How come after all these years there still has not been a quantum model of gravity that has been successfully developed?? QM can describe the behavior of tiny objects but cannot deal with larger objects. Isn't it logical to be suspicious of QM if it fails to account for gravity?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by crashfrog, posted 09-22-2004 10:53 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 387 by NosyNed, posted 09-24-2004 7:40 PM General Nazort has not replied
 Message 388 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2004 8:01 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 389 of 414 (145368)
09-28-2004 1:25 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by sidelined
09-22-2004 11:14 PM


You need to explain.What laws does God have to follow that apply to him?
Arghh - sorry sidelined, I got you mixed up with crashfrog. I was talking about his arguments in the thread "What is supernatural?"
What is the law of non-contradiction?
Something can't be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same way.
This is a very vague notion for which I must ask some sort of explanation.What is time of sorts mean?
If time is where cause-effect relationships take place, then God must have some sort of "time" in which he operates, but it is not like our time as we know it.
This is what I have been trying to nail down.He is outside of it. How does he affect it then?
What do you mean how does he affect it? You don't have to be inside something to affect it. I can be outside of something and have an effect on it quite easily.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by sidelined, posted 09-22-2004 11:14 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 391 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 1:39 PM General Nazort has replied
 Message 396 by sidelined, posted 09-28-2004 11:45 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 390 of 414 (145370)
09-28-2004 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 384 by Rei
09-23-2004 2:39 PM


So, once again, if I'm understanding you correctly:
1) We're not supposed to believe in a small, basic set of rules that "just are" (i.e., without a cause)
2) We *are* supposed to believe in an infinitely more complex (to the point of being sentient) being that "just is" (i.e., without a cause)
I guess that is what I am saying. However I have been trying to show reasons why a "small basic set of rules that just are" is not the rules of quantum mechanics - because of the problems with QM to account for everything.
How on earth does this seem like a logical argument to you?
What is illogical about it?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Rei, posted 09-23-2004 2:39 PM Rei has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:04 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 393 of 414 (145438)
09-28-2004 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Rei
09-28-2004 2:04 PM


You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?
I'm not arguing that quantum fluctuations can't exist without a cause, I am arguing that there is an underlying cause. Why is there an underlying cause? Because QM still has some problems that seem to indicate it is an incomplete theory.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:04 PM Rei has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 394 of 414 (145439)
09-28-2004 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 391 by PaulK
09-28-2004 1:39 PM


Re: Two questions
In what sense does the law of non-contradiction apply to the universe rather than to statements ?
In every sense.
Given that sense how can it have a source ?
What do you mean?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 391 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 1:39 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 6:32 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 414 (145845)
09-29-2004 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by crashfrog
09-24-2004 8:01 PM


Isn't it logical to be suspicious of any theory of gravity that doesn't account for QM?
Yes - something is wrong with relativity as well.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2004 8:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 398 of 414 (145847)
09-29-2004 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Rei
09-28-2004 2:04 PM


You have to ask what is illogical about arguing that quantum fluctuations can't "just exist" and that they must have a cause, but then arguing that God "just exists" and doesn't have a cause?
No, I am asking what is illogical about pointing out that QM has some problems and therefore something is probably going on that we don't know about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Rei, posted 09-28-2004 2:04 PM Rei has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 399 of 414 (145854)
09-29-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by sidelined
09-28-2004 11:45 PM


However the problem is how a god who is outside of our material world and is thereby immaterial is able to affect the material.
God speaks and it happens. He can do it because it is in his power to do it.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by sidelined, posted 09-28-2004 11:45 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by sidelined, posted 09-30-2004 8:05 AM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 400 of 414 (145856)
09-29-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by PaulK
09-28-2004 6:32 PM


Re: Two questions
What do you mean "in every sense" ? To what other than statements CAN a semantic rule like the law of non-contradiction apply ?
How about a star cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same way?
And the question of how the law of non-contradiction could have a source seems clear enough - how could such a source operate ?
The source is the nature of God. I guess you could say it operates because God operates.

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2004 6:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 3:59 AM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 403 of 414 (146474)
10-01-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 402 by sidelined
09-30-2004 8:05 AM


You say that god is nothing like us yet {immaterial} yet you imbue him with qulities like speech {material} and then merely say that it happens because he can do it.How do you know this?
God is like us in some ways - we are made in his image after all. God is a person, and we reflect this in being persons as well - people who can think, talk, have emotions, etc. And while we have physical bodies, we also have "immaterial" spiritual souls.
I am sorry if I seem dense to you but these statements are meaningless in that they do not address the issue of how such a thing is done.We can say such things without qualification as long as we do not press ourselves to explain this absurdity to ourselves.
So you are saying that God cannot have the innate quality of being able to create the material universe?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by sidelined, posted 09-30-2004 8:05 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 406 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2004 9:47 PM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 404 of 414 (146492)
10-01-2004 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by PaulK
09-30-2004 3:59 AM


Re: Two questions
You mean that the statements " exists" and " does not exist" cannot both be true unless the identification of the star or the understanding of existence are different
Yes,
i.e. there are differneces in semantic content of the statements other than the fact that the latter contains a negation
Yes,
It's all about statements and the meaning of negation. Haven't you noticed that the law of the excluded middle is often not applied in natural language ? But that law is as fundamental to simple predicate logic as non-contradiction.
The law of the excluded middle is that for any proposition P, it is true that P is true or not P is not true, right?
I suggest that you consider wave-particle duality, understand why it is not a contradiction
I agree that this is not a contradiction - light acts like a wave AND acts like a particle.
and see for yourself how we would resolve "contradictions" in reality.
If something is truly a contradiction it cannot be resolved...
And you still aren't explaining how a source of "non-contradiction" is even possible or how it could work. Maybe in the circles you travel in "God does it" is an adequate answer - even though it is more of an evasion than an answer. It isn't here.
How would you explain it, in the circles you travel?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2004 3:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 405 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2004 1:25 PM General Nazort has not replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 407 of 414 (146667)
10-02-2004 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by sidelined
10-01-2004 9:47 PM


General Nazort:
So you are saying that God cannot have the innate quality of being able to create the material universe?
Sidelined:
Not at all.
Sidelined: a being outside of space-time must be incapable of accessing anything within space-time or the being no longer is outside of spacetime.
So God can create space-time (the universe) but he cannot access it once it is created?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by sidelined, posted 10-01-2004 9:47 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by sidelined, posted 10-02-2004 2:07 AM General Nazort has replied

General Nazort
Inactive Member


Message 409 of 414 (146685)
10-02-2004 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by sidelined
10-02-2004 2:07 AM


If your god is outside of space-time he cannot create space-time without some means of manipulating it.
True.
Obviously a material world must be materially shaped therefore one must ask the means by which such is accomplished.
No! Why must a material world be materially shaped? I contend that God has the innate ability to create and manipulate a material world even though he himself is immaterial.
Earlier you seemed to affirm that God could have this innate ability when you said "not at all" when I asked if you thought God did not have this ability. Now you seem to be saying the opposite. Do you say God has the innate ability to create and modify the material world even though he is not part of it, or do you say he does not?

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by sidelined, posted 10-02-2004 2:07 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by sidelined, posted 10-02-2004 8:51 AM General Nazort has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024