Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 11:49 PM
26 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,107 Year: 9,143/19,786 Month: 1,565/2,119 Week: 325/576 Day: 128/98 Hour: 1/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are religions manmade and natural or supernaturally based?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 383 of 511 (772943)
11-20-2015 5:15 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by ICANT
11-20-2015 3:19 AM


unobserved, thus non existent

And thus ends the debate. Thanks for being such a magnanimous loser ICANT.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by ICANT, posted 11-20-2015 3:19 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 408 of 511 (773171)
11-25-2015 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by ICANT
11-25-2015 1:29 AM


That means time could not exist until the universe began to exist.

If time did not exist there was no time in which one can exist in, in order to wait 'until' time existed. If time's existence starts at the Big Bang, then there was no before it.

Therefore, there are no points in time, when there are no points in time. There are no points in space where there are no points in space.

If we are working in a General Relativity sense. If we presume time did not begin at the Big Bang then we enter the world of mathematically consistent theories, mathematically inconsistent theories and religious speculation.

There are attempts to pick apart the tiniest of pieces of evidence to see if anything is empirically consistent in any interesting way with any of the theories - but not much we can have any degree of confidence in has emerged.

You can, as many have, {insert God here}.

As you have argued however, your own construction of supernatural essentially means 'anything is possible'. Which is another way of saying 'I don't know anything'*. Which is fine, but it is probably better to be direct.

* Actually it means 'I can't know anything', but I was being charitable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by ICANT, posted 11-25-2015 1:29 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2015 2:28 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 422 of 511 (773261)
11-27-2015 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 414 by ICANT
11-27-2015 2:28 AM


So how would time begin to exist inside of the universe?

Does it?

The universe did not exist yet for time to begin to exist in.

There is no point in time where there was no point in time such that you can ever say 'time did not exist, at that point in time'. It would be, for obvious reasons, gibberish.

Without existence existing there would be no place for either to be, or come into existence.

My point exactly. Therefore your statement that

quote:
That means time could not exist until the universe began to exist.

Is gibberish. Or as I said:

If time did not exist there was no time in which one can exist in, in order to wait 'until' time existed. If time's existence starts at the Big Bang, then there was no before it.

Therefore, there are no points in time, when there are no points in time. There are no points in space where there are no points in space.

If we are working in a General Relativity sense. If we presume time did not begin at the Big Bang then we enter the world of mathematically consistent theories, mathematically inconsistent theories and religious speculation.

In General Relativity: Time and Space and Energy {aka the Universe} just exist as a four dimensional entity. It doesn't have anything that happened before it as the four dimensional object does not sit within a temporal dimension.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2015 2:28 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 424 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2015 3:10 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 425 of 511 (773270)
11-27-2015 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 424 by ICANT
11-27-2015 3:10 PM


What would be the mechanism that caused time to begin to exist at the Big Bang.

There is no mechanism. There is no cause.

So when there was no point in time and no points in space there was non existence.

Nope, there was never a when there was no point in time and there is not a place where there are no points in space. There was never non-existence.

What mechanism would you propose to solve that problem?

It's simple really, you made up the problem so I can dismiss it with equal ease.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2015 3:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 427 by ICANT, posted 11-28-2015 4:26 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 429 of 511 (773283)
11-28-2015 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 427 by ICANT
11-28-2015 4:26 AM


So what existed at T=0?

Everything.

I can tell you what did not exist there.
There was no universe.
There was no space-time.
There was no energy.
There was no mass.
There was no vacuum.
None of these things existed until T=0-9 according to the standard model.

Wrong. That which is asserted without proof can be dismissed likewise.

But seriously, think about it. You are saying the universe existed for a billionth of a second before it existed. Gibberish.

If the BBT is correct there was non existence at T=0.

Wrong.

So let me get what you are telling me straight .

The universe began to exist at T=0-9with space-time

You started wrong. Let's try again: The universe exists and time is bounded, at least in the past.

Therefore there is no point in time the universe did not exist nor no point in space the universe did not exist.

Correct.

Yet the universe can not exit in time or space as they are in the universe not outside the universe for the universe to exist in.

This sounds like the cat chasing his tail, or circular reasoning.

The universe exists. It is in four dimensions. It does not not exist. This is not circular reasoning, its ontology.

My point is that there isn't a Gap of Non-existence to squeeze your God into. You'll have to find somewhere else, or try to butcher a different cosmology model.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 427 by ICANT, posted 11-28-2015 4:26 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 430 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-28-2015 9:51 AM Modulous has responded
 Message 439 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2015 4:33 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 432 of 511 (773294)
11-28-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 430 by Thugpreacha
11-28-2015 9:51 AM


Re: Creation Through Imagination
Why is it that people have no difficulty imagining an eternally existing universe yet so many have trouble imagining an eternally existing God? They always ask "who created God"?

Turnabout is fair play.

The problem is that many supernaturalists proclaim that there must be something that exists BEFORE the universe. They propose God. Then they deny that the argument they used can be used again to say 'there must be something that exists BEFORE God'.

Then they argue 'But God does not existing within a temporal frame, he transcends time and space.', while being unable to accept that's what I'm saying about the universe.

My theory is that people can construct a theory that explains eternally existing matter

I don't propose eternally existing matter. In the model in discussion, matter has only been around for about 13 billion years.

Its much less taxing on the conscience, however, for a person to attempt to explain (and/or) construct theories on how it all began---or eternally existed---without God.

I don't know why adding an extra entity that requires an explanation can possibly be regarded as less complicated. By adding God into the discussion, not only are you not solving any of the problems you claim to {you just push them back} but you are raising more and more questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 430 by Thugpreacha, posted 11-28-2015 9:51 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 441 of 511 (773333)
11-30-2015 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by ICANT
11-29-2015 4:33 PM


Then where did it exist?

Everywhere.

Are we in agreement that the universe is self contained and there is nothing outside of the universe according to the standard theory?

Yes.

It is either eternal or had a beginning to exist, which is it?

It has a finite past. I think that leaves us with less room for equivocation, so let's use that.

If it had a beginning to exist that would require non existence preceded the universe.

The concept of 'preceding' the universe makes no sense in light of the fact that there is nothing except the universe. The universe exists. It has a finite past. That's it. There was no points in space before there were points in space. There are no points in time other than that which is in the universe. There is no requirement that non existence precedes it, indeed there is a requirement that THERE ARE NO points in time before it.

No preceding state to the universe, no time no space before it. It just is.

There was a Supernatural Power which is outside of the universe to provide the energy and mass the universe was formed from.

Well, no. There are more than two possibilities. Many of them don't require a supernatural power. But let's stick with getting you to understand my godless universe before we start worrying about other possibilities.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by ICANT, posted 11-29-2015 4:33 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 11-30-2015 1:58 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 454 of 511 (773372)
11-30-2015 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by ICANT
11-30-2015 1:58 PM


But everywhere did not exist.

Of course it did. Space and Time existed.

Just what do you mean by a finite past?

I mean that time has at least one end, at the Big Bang.

But that universe has not existed forever.

It exists for all time. Which has a finite past.

abe:

. The Supernatural power I call God could have supplied the energy and mass that created our universe.

Of course, but where and when is this God?

If you want me to understand your Godless universe you need to provide a mechanism whereby the infinite energy existed at T=0-9 and began to expand creating your Godless universe.

The energy in the universe has existed for all of time, including a billionth of a second away from the start of time. The expansion is described by GR.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by ICANT, posted 11-30-2015 1:58 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
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 (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 269 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 495 of 511 (774730)
12-21-2015 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by ICANT
12-14-2015 12:11 PM


You on the other hand believe that infinite energy did exist outside of existence.

No I don't, I had literally just said the opposite. Please make the effort to sincerely understand me.

Otherwise where did the infinite energy that is supposed to have began to expand into our universe come from.

The universe didn't come from some place or time. It's existence itself. You are asking about something outside of existence. As I said: Speculating about things that are outside of existence is literally speculating on the non-existent. As you stated: "Either there is existence or there is non existence as there is no in between."

So the place outside of existence which you speculate must exist to contain infinite energy?

Doesn't exist in this model. By definition.

The existence of the universe has a finite past. That does not mean that existence has a finite past.

This is technically correct, but not in the case where we are discussing a philosophical model in which Existence and The Universe are synonymous. You know, like when I said "The model I am describing Spacetime is synonymous with existence."

In fact the existence of the universe requires that existence is infinite.

No it doesn't.

Einstein believed...

Einstein died before completing his registration at EvC. You are stuck with dealing with my model and your model. Your model can only lead to the conclusion that the supernatural exists by process of elimination. My model has not yet been eliminated, so you cannot reach the supernatural conclusion yet.

I don't really have a model.

Yes you do. In your model God is infinite and created the universe. That thing you pasted just after saying this, that includes 'Now whatever caused the universe to have a beginning to exist from an absence of anything would be a supernatural power'- That's your model.

According to you the universe is finite.

It has a finite past. That's all I care about for this thread.

Which requires a beginning to exist as it is not eternal in existence.

It does not require a 'beginning to exist'. It simply requires an earliest point in time. I said it before that the phrase 'beginning to exist' is frought with ambiguity and implications that are causing you some big hiccups.

It didn't begin to exist. It exists. It has existed for all time. Time has a finite past. At the 'first point in time' it existed just as much as now. It was no more 'beginning to exist' than we are right now.

Since the word Supernatural is used that means it would not be an entity that is controlled by natural means in the universe as it would be outside the universe and not subject to any restraints finite man might want to impose upon it.

Of course in my model, you are now speculating on the non-existent as 'outside of existence' is non-existent. (And remember, 'outside the universe' is 'outside of existence').

The other problem you run into, that I mentioned earlier - is even if you reject the Universe=existence model, this still doesn't get you to the Supernatural. It just gets you to the superuniversal. Whether or not the superuniversal is supernatural is a completely different, and I'm going to say more difficult, argument. But simply speculating that the superuniversal exists does not advance your argument.

There are lots of superuniversal natural models out there too. I kind of like the model which is infinite in space and time and the universe simply is noise. Increasing entropy in both directions of time, and one of the possible consequences of trying to increase entropy is to create pocket universes such as our own within the superuniversal realm. No supernatural, no direction, no intelligence required. Although it is speculative, it is mathematically consistent with what we know at the moment, which is more than can be said for infinitely powerful infinitely old beings that become ICANT's best friend.

The claim is that time is a dimension of the universe when time is not physical and can not be measured. Being a dimension of the universe time could not exist until after the universe existed. Therefore the universe has existed longer than time has existed.

I got to stop my head is spinning going around in this circle.

Start taking me seriously, and we can avoid you repeating yourself and us going in circles.

This is all kinds of wrong, but let me tell you that time is part of the universe. If the universe exists, time exists. My model does not postulate

{Some period of time passes} -> {The universe begins to exist} -> {Time and space begin to exist}

Rather it is simply
{Space and time exist}

This would be like speculating that I had a swimming pool in my back garden before it had a length (presumably I was stuck doing widths ) , that I started drinking my beer before it had any volume....

The universe exists, time exists. They have some properties that apes find odd to the point of being difficult or impossible to understand, depending on species and individual.

If you would prefer we can move beyond the 'the universe must have come from somewhere' argument, and start discussing why the 'somewhere' must be supernatural. I just think this is a simpler argument to have and I'm not confident that if this argument has been so difficult to have, the other one will go smoother. In my experience, this part of the argument is exactly the same as that part ultimately - we've just abstracted it one level which fools us into thinking our speculations can go wild and we can befriend entities from other dimensions. We have to get through that confusing point and then we realize we're having the same argument as we were before decided to go the further step. IE - is a supernatural agent required to 'kick start' it or no? The answer is 'no'. This is not the same as saying a supernatural agent didn't kick start it, just that there doesn't seem to be an absolute need to have one in order for a universe to exist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by ICANT, posted 12-14-2015 12:11 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019