|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Omnivorous,
Omnivorous writes: I do think the BB theory is the best explanation we have for the current state of the universe. Unlike you, I understand that the math breaks down at T=0, and the theory cannot say anything valid about it--most especially, it cannot reveal the state of affairs prior to T=0, and it doesn't point to energy requirements from outside the universe. So why does the universe exist rather than nothing? God Bless,"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
Hi Cat,
Cat writes: I've explained this to you numerous times but you refuse to acknowledge understanding of anything that contradicts your argument. You have never tried to explain which of the first 2 things listed is wrong. You have tried on the 3rd one.
Cat writes: #3 is false because it has false implications. "Beginning to exist" implies a point in time where the Universe does not exist. There is nothing implied about a point in time in #3. Time is inside of the universe and is determined by the earths rotation in relation to the sun. So you have to invoke Stephen Hawking's imaginary time which is just that his imagination at work.
Cat writes: According to the Big Bang Theory, the Universe exist at all points in time. There is no point in time for the Universe to begin to exist from. How can the universe exist at all points in time when time is a part of the universe which is controlled by the earth's rotation in relation to the sun? I know you have bought into imaginary time as a place for the universe to exist in. But that is impossible as time is a part of the universe.
Cat writes: The catch is that the amount of time in the past direction is finite. I would agree that since time is a part of the universe it is finite in the past and began to exist in the universe whenever that was. I just believe that existence is eternal and the universe as we know it had a beginning to exist in that existence. The universe has not always existed as it would all be one temperature and thus dead. The universe does exist today which requires the universe to have a beginning to exist. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
ICANT writes: So why does the universe exist rather than nothing? I don't know. Neither do you. Could you define this state of affairs that you call "nothing"? What makes you think it could exist? Why is the universe expanding at an accelerating rate? I don't know. Neither do you. You've latched onto your own intuitive understanding of physicists attempting to explain complex mathematical/theoretical models in plain language, always an inadequate approximation, and used your human sensory experience of space and time to make arguments about theology. This led you to declare that Hawking's work supports your theology when it doesn't, as he has made clear. If these cosmological concepts move you, and make you feel as if a supernatural force was necessary, well, good for you. I don't care one way or the other. But the BB doesn't give you scientific grounds for that, and your theo-logic is based only on a feeling."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads." Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.-Terence
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So why does the universe exist rather than nothing? Because nothing can't exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
ICANT writes:
Note that Hawking's statement is essentially a claim that the laws of physics transcend the universe. For the law of gravity to be able to create the universe, the law of gravity must already exist before the Big Bang and outside of the physical universe. But this conflicts with the well-known claims of Weinberg and others that as we run the clock backwards, the laws of physics (including the law of gravity) break down at a very small but finite time after the Big Bang.
Stephen Hawking writes:
There can be no gravity in non existence.
Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. From nothing comes nothing. No existence = no universe.Maybe you know of an experiment where spontaneous creation took place. If you do I would like to read about it. The universe exists because it exists. The question is how did the universe begin to exist. Hawking has presented 0 evidence to support his assertions. Even in these quotes he is still stating the universe had a beginning to exist. He is just trying to get the job done without an outside supernatural power."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
So what part of my statement is not correct? The part where you claim that science describes the universe at T=0. So the statement you give below would be an example of something you said which is not correct.
So yes the Big Bang theory says there was no thing at T=0 In the same post you say that cavediver says that the 'no thing' was the size of a pinprick at T=0. Such a statement is not even self consistent.
I have been very busy lately working on getting my sheepskin. For what, I have no idea I just decided I wanted it before my 80th birthday. lol I still got 4 years to get there, all I like is my thesis. That's fantastic ICANT! I love to hear stories like yours! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Why does anything exist rather than nothing?
Including any God. If there is a god he will be asking himself that very question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: You can't be serious with this question. Or are you?
If the company you work for produces the most reliable product to the customers why do they need grants?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
ICANT writes: So why would your favourite Spooks exist rather than nothing? So why does the universe exist rather than nothing? Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Time is inside of the universe and is determined by the earths rotation in relation to the sun. That's one way to describe time, but that is not the concept of time that the Big Bang Theory uses. Time is the 4th dimension of the Universe - which as a whole is referred to as spacetime. Do you know what a manifold is in physics? The Universe is a 4-Dimensional manifold and time is one of those dimensions. It is independent of, and is not determined by, Earth's rotation.
How can the universe exist at all points in time when time is a part of the universe which is controlled by the earth's rotation in relation to the sun? Because that's not what time is in physics.
So you have to invoke Stephen Hawking's imaginary time which is just that his imagination at work. ... I know you have bought into imaginary time as a place for the universe to exist in. But that is impossible as time is a part of the universe. I've done neither of those things.
beginning to exist "Beginning to exist" is a nonsensical phrase. Existence is implicit to beginning, and to have a beginning implies existing. You basically saying "to begin to begin", which would be better phrased as just "to begin". You should remove "beginning to exist" from your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
ICANT writes:
I did. I copy-pasted it directly from Message 82.
If you are going to quote me get your quote right. ICANT writes:
I know you didn't mention that - because it's the fatal flaw in your fairy tale.
I did not say any thing about the supernatural power not being able to produce the supernatural power. ICANT writes:
That's made up, as per the topic. It has no basis in reality.
The supernatural power would have to be an eternal entity with no beginning and no end. ICANT writes:
That law began at the beginning - i.e. at the Big bang. It says nothing about how the Big Bang could or could not happen.
Remember the law energy and mass can not be created. ICANT writes:
When there is no explanation (yet), the scientific approach is to say, "There is no explanation, yet." The religious approach is to make up a fictional explanation.
I suppose you have a better explanation of how the energy and mass could begin to exist from non existence. ICANT writes:
You could prove me wrong by presenting a mechanism whereby a "God" could exist.
You could prove me wrong by presenting a mechanism whereby the universe could begin to exist out of non existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So you reject the resurrection of my cat as a fantasy. Despite the missing body. Despite the fact we have direct access to the eye witnesses in question (which is far more than can be said of the resurrection you do believe in). Despite the fact that I have provided you with a written account of the events.
Things which you call "evidence" when it suits you are simply discarded as irrelevant when it doesn't. The scribing of oral traditions decades after the events supposedly happened, written by people who weren't themselves witnesses and whom we can never quiz directly. Embellishment, fantasy and mythologising are hardly things restricted to children and you would presumably accept as being rife in other religions created by adults. So explain to me why you don't accept that there is evidence of my cat resurrection and remind us of the evidence you put forward pertaining to that other resurrection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
PaulK writes: Care to produce your evidence. Faith writes: The empty tomb. This would be the famous tomb known the world over, the one studied by historians, theologians, archaeologists, anthropologists and all the other -ists and demonstrated to be *the* tomb where Jesus was placed after he died and where he rose after three days?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't know if anyone even knows which tomb it is. The point is that the one Jesus was laid in figures prominently in the Bible reports as found to be empty on the first day of the week after the crucifixion. All we've been discussing is the Biblical reports of the finding of the empty tomb and then the encounters with the risen Christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
That's fine if that's what you choose to believe, but there's no evidence of a tomb, nor of Jesus's death or resurrection, nor even of Jesus himself. Evidence was what PaulK requested. You can, I suppose, respond that here in the Faith and Belief forum that evidence isn't required, but that doesn't mean your stories are evidence. It means you don't have evidence.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024