Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2521 of 3207 (880766)
08-11-2020 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 2520 by Phat
08-11-2020 11:52 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:
Creator of all seen and unseen is hardly on the same level as Santa Claus.
It's the EXACT same level: fictional character.
Phat writes:
You make the mistake of placing all myths on the same shelf.
You make the mistake of arbitrarily picking some fiction over other fiction. All myths ARE on the same shelf: the myth shelf.
Phat writes:
Ask yourself if it is logical for the shelf to have always existed.
Neither logic nor shelves have anything to do with it.
Phat writes:
We know that it is illogical for humans to have always existed yet with our nifty little chemically formed minds we dare speculate, quantify and objectify everything around us except a Creator...
It isn't speculation. Chemicals ARE objective and quantifiable, a Creator is not.
Phat writes:
... a Creator, which we quite naturally find illogical and unnecessary.
Pay attention. I have been having a long conversation with Sarah Bellum in which I insist that a Creator is NOT illogical.
Phat writes:
Yet the idea that chemicals were the first thing around is illogical. If they were all packed tightly in a singularity, they obviously were not involved in the process that formed the singularity itself.
The same applies to gods.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2520 by Phat, posted 08-11-2020 11:52 AM Phat has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2522 of 3207 (880824)
08-11-2020 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 2516 by Phat
08-11-2020 6:54 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
This is ringos argument, not mine.
I know what your belief is. I just wanted to know about what chemicals you were talking about.
If there was an absence of existence there could be no place for chemicals to exist or anything else.
Phat writes:
They will even claim that I have no argument but only an assertion.
All of their assertions are based upon assumptions.
Phat writes:
The soapbox critics here at EvC do not realize that "In The Berginning..Chemicals" is as much made up as any God hypothesis. Unless they are inferring the chemicals in their own minds!
Did you mean their brains?
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 2516 by Phat, posted 08-11-2020 6:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2527 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 6:55 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2523 of 3207 (880863)
08-13-2020 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 2519 by Tangle
08-11-2020 11:14 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Hi Tangle,
Tangle writes:
Hawking did not believe that the universe had a creator,
Sure he believed in a creator. He just called it an instanton.
Tangle said Hawking wrote writes:
But now science offers a more convincing explanation,
"We don't know," is not a more convincing explanation.
Do you have a better answer?
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 2519 by Tangle, posted 08-11-2020 11:14 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2524 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2020 3:22 AM ICANT has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2524 of 3207 (880864)
08-13-2020 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2523 by ICANT
08-13-2020 1:18 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ICANT writes:
Sure he believed in a creator. He just called it an instanton.
Hawking was an atheist and did not believe in a creator. I gave you his own words, don't twist them, it's not Christian.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2523 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2020 1:18 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2525 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 6:23 AM Tangle has replied
 Message 2529 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2020 11:46 PM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2525 of 3207 (880865)
08-13-2020 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 2524 by Tangle
08-13-2020 3:22 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ICANT is simply describing how others view Dr.Hawkings work:
The Stephen Hawking Centre For Theoretical Cosmology
Centre for Theoretical Cosmology writes:
Stephen Hawking and Neil Turok have proposed a bold solution to this problem. They constructed a class of instantons that give rise to open Universes in a similar way to the instantons of Coleman and De Luccia. However, they did not require the existence of a false vacuum or other very specific properties of the excited matter state. The price they pay for this is that their instantons have singularities: places where the curvature becomes infinite. Since singularities are usually regarded as places where the theory breaks down and must be replaced by a more fundamental theory, this is a quite controversial feature of their work.
The question of course arises which of these instantons describes correctly the creation of our own Universe. The way one might hope to distinguish between different theories of quantum cosmology is by considering quantum fluctuations about these instantons. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics implies that vacuum fluctuations are present in every quantum theory. In the full quantum picture therefore, an instanton provides us just with a background geometry in the path integral with respect to which quantum fluctuations need to be considered.
This stuff is way over all of our heads, but essentially ICANT is correct. Hawking did not believe in a Creator(just like Tangle!) and it certainly appears that the definition of instanton smoothed out the difficulties found in the maths. What amuses me about Tangle is that he bows his head to highly educated physicists when they dont know any more about what created the singularity than do you or I. We believe that it is essentially a Creator of all seen and unseen, which ringo arrogantly labels as fictional even though he has no basis in so doing. Except pride.
Tangle will angrily chide me for assuming I am anywhere near Dr.Hawkings league and manner of expertise, but even the late great Dr.Hawking had no way to construct a theory about a Creator of all seen and unseen. Many great philosophers have done so, and while they can prove nothing, I certainly recognize the concept as vastly different than a human created myth such as Santa Claus.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2524 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2020 3:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2526 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2020 6:47 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 2530 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2020 2:05 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2526 of 3207 (880866)
08-13-2020 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 2525 by Phat
08-13-2020 6:23 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
You always get hold of the wrong end of every stick....
My comments have nothing to do with any of that, I'm simply pointing out that Hawking was an atheist, he therefore did not believe in a creator and his work demonstrated to him that a creator is not necessary.
ICANT wants to claim Hawking for his side
ICANT writes:
Sure he believed in a creator. He just called it an instanton.
Hawking was not on your or ICANT's side of this discussion, to say otherwise is to lie.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2525 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 6:23 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2541 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2020 1:18 AM Tangle has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 2527 of 3207 (880867)
08-13-2020 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 2522 by ICANT
08-11-2020 10:54 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ICANT writes:
If there was an absence of existence there could be no place for chemicals to exist or anything else.
I know! Im assuming that they will try and get around this by saying that at no point was there actually nothing...but always at a minimum a singularity.
Human wisdom needs maths to hang on to, but we never consider the fact that the only real pretender to a Creator of all seen and unseen is in fact human wisdom itself.
ICANT writes:
All of their assertions are based upon assumptions.
Granted their assumptions are based on some sort of objective proof within the math and physics themselves, but I dont fault science for never settling on the belief that God was the Creator since in their minds it provides an "easy" answer which puts them out of a job.
Tangle often accuses philosophers of making shit up. Note the following excerpt from the article I introduced:
One of the central problems in connecting fundamental theory with cosmology is how inflation emerges from within a higher-dimensional spacetime. There has been much recent progress in obtaining models within string theory, much of it pioneered in DAMTP, which include so-called 'brane inflation', 'large volume' scenarios and even more radical 'cyclic' models in which the Universe expands and recollapses perpetually. However, several open problems remain related to the stablilsation of the fields that describe the shapes and volumes of the extra dimensions, as well as difficulties with obtaining a long enough inflationary period to describe our Universe. There have been recent advances that suggest dynamical mechanisms which may fix these fields to values required by cosmological observations. However, many different scenarios exist, so we need to develop criteria for identifying a subset of cosmologically viable models out of this vast string theory landscape.. How is developing criteria for identifying any different than making stuff up? Math is a tool for understanding. Humans by nature do not understand why in regards to a lot of things.
Now on to ringo:
Phat writes:
...Creator of all seen and unseen is hardly on the same level as Santa Claus.
ringo writes:
It's the EXACT same level: fictional character.
You have no basis for calling a Creator of all seen and unseen a fictional character. Except that perhaps He never talked to you to your satisfaction.
Phat writes:
You make the mistake of placing all myths on the same shelf.
ringo writes:
You make the mistake of arbitrarily picking some fiction over other fiction. All myths ARE on the same shelf: the myth shelf.
There is nothing arbitrary about my choice. My choice is very specific, justified, and intentional. You are picking a fight with every great philosopher whom ever lived. Your precious evidence will never get you the answer that you truly want...it will only lead to more questions. You are, however fully responsible for your choice. I hope that it works out well for you.
Neither logic nor shelves have anything to do with it.
The jury is still out in regards to whether the concepts being discussed are in fact fictional. Time to reorganize our shelves.
Phat writes:
We know that it is illogical for humans to have always existed yet with our nifty little chemically formed minds we dare speculate, quantify and objectify everything around us except a Creator...
Brains is what I mean.
ringo writes:
It isn't speculation. Chemicals ARE objective and quantifiable, a Creator is not.
Chemicals would also be included in the singularity. A Creator of all seen and unseen would not reside there.
ringo writes:
Pay attention. I have been having a long conversation with Sarah Bellum in which I insist that a Creator is NOT illogical.
I will have to review that conversation, but it appears that you are arguing in support of what you label a fictional character. How interesting.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2522 by ICANT, posted 08-11-2020 10:54 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2528 by ringo, posted 08-13-2020 1:27 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 2544 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2020 1:53 AM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 2528 of 3207 (880898)
08-13-2020 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 2527 by Phat
08-13-2020 6:55 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:
You have no basis for calling a Creator of all seen and unseen a fictional character.
Sure I do. You yourself consider every concept of God that's different from yours to be fictional. I'm just going one fiction farther than you.
Phat writes:
Except that perhaps He never talked to you to your satisfaction.
He talked/talks to me as much as He talks to you.
Phat writes:
My choice is very specific, justified, and intentional.
Nonsense. You have no rational for picking one myth over another. You don't even know anything about most of them.
Phat writes:
You are picking a fight with every great philosopher whom ever lived.
Don't be silly. Every philosopher who ever lived didn't agree with each other or with you. Your attempt at appeal to authority and/or popularity won't work.
Phat writes:
Your precious evidence will never get you the answer that you truly want...it will only lead to more questions.
There is no "answer that I want". More questions hopefully lead to more understanding. I don't want to stop learning when I have "the answer" like you.
Phat writes:
Chemicals would also be included in the singularity.
"The singularity" is not a thing or a place. It's the condition of the mathematics breaking down.
Phat writes:
A Creator of all seen and unseen would not reside there.
That's an empty claim. It's just an excuse, an attempt to make a distinction between "the chemicals must have come from somewhere" and " God had to come from somewhere".
Phat writes:
ringo writes:
... I insist that a Creator is NOT illogical.
... it appears that you are arguing in support of what you label a fictional character.
Fiction is not necessarily illogical. God and Long John Silver are both fictional but neither is necessarily illogical.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2527 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 6:55 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2532 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2020 2:26 AM ringo has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2529 of 3207 (880907)
08-13-2020 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 2524 by Tangle
08-13-2020 3:22 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Hi Tangle,
Tangle writes:
Hawking was an atheist and did not believe in a creator.
Then why did he invent imaginary time and the instanton.
According to the Standard theory the universe had 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2524 by Tangle, posted 08-13-2020 3:22 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2531 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2020 2:10 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2530 of 3207 (880912)
08-14-2020 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 2525 by Phat
08-13-2020 6:23 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Hi Phat,
Phat writes:
This stuff is way over all of our heads, but essentially ICANT is correct.
ICANT is probably wrong. If I could have a conversation with Stephen Hawking right now I could find out because he has all the answers to all his questions now.
Hawking says the universe has not always existed.
If it has not always existed then it had to have a beginning to exist as it does exist today.
Stephen Hawking is no longer available but I searched through my posts and found many of his lectures.
In a public Lecture "The Beginning of Time" Hawking said:
quote:
In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itrself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted.
So since Hawking could not believe in God being the first cause of the existence of the universe, he invented imaginary time which is vertical in existence in which his instanton could exist and create the universe we see today.
The problem with that is there is no such thing as imaginary time. So all he had was his assumptions.
You guys have mentioned singularity several times and I would like to remind you that cavediver, and Son Goku spent about 3 years trying to get me to understand that the singularity does not exist.
When the math gets to the point it makes no sense that is what is called singularity.
In other words it gets to the point there is non existence as the math can go no further.
That is the reason I kept asking and still ask what existed at T=0 which represents that time does not exist.
No one knows what existed at T=0. The best scientific answer to my question is "we don't know". I don't think anybody really cares as they have swallowed the assumptions.
But we do know according to the standard theory that at T=0-43 the universe existed and was expanding at about 82.4 kilometers per second per megaparsec in every direction.
There is no evidence for the existence of the universe at T=0-43 only an assumption that it did exist.
The Standard Theory is supposed tell us everything after that. But it has a lot of problems that still needs fixing.
Phat they have a problem accepting our God created the universe.
I have often wondered why they think we should accept their version of creation?
There is no evidence and no one knows how the universe began to exist. We are just supposed to believe they are right and take them at their word because they are much smarter than we are, according to them.
They think our God is an impersonal God. That is because they have never met Him and come to know Him. They have never met Him because they have been deluded into believing a lie by the master of deception of this earth.
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 2525 by Phat, posted 08-13-2020 6:23 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2535 by DrJones*, posted 08-14-2020 10:24 AM ICANT has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2531 of 3207 (880913)
08-14-2020 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 2529 by ICANT
08-13-2020 11:46 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ICANT writes:
According to the Standard theory the universe had to have a beginning to exist.
Hawking believed that the universe could create itself.
Why are you Christians so damned dishonest? Just read what he himself says. He was an atheist.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2529 by ICANT, posted 08-13-2020 11:46 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2533 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2020 3:48 AM Tangle has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2532 of 3207 (880915)
08-14-2020 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 2528 by ringo
08-13-2020 1:27 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
There is no "answer that I want". More questions hopefully lead to more understanding. I don't want to stop learning when I have "the answer" like you.
Then I assume you know how the universe was created.
That being the case you should be able to answer my question. What existed at T=0?
God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2528 by ringo, posted 08-13-2020 1:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2536 by ringo, posted 08-14-2020 12:10 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 2533 of 3207 (880916)
08-14-2020 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2531 by Tangle
08-14-2020 2:10 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
Hawking believed that the universe could create itself.
Why are you Christians so damned dishonest? Just read what he himself says. He was an atheist.
So he believed in creation and a creator even though it was his instanton.
Hawking believed his assumption that what he imagined that he called an instanton could create a universe just like the one we live in.
The problem is there is no place for the instanton to pop into existence. So he had to invent imaginary time (which runs vertical not on a time line.) in order to have a place for the instanton to pop into existence.
Below are 4 assumptions that must be true for Hawking's self creating universe to exist today.
Assumption 1 imaginary time existed with a vacuum in it.
Assumption 2 instanton popping into existence.
Assumption 3 the instanton had everything in it that composes the universe.
Assumption 4 the instanton began to expand into the universe we see today.
Now can you give me any evidence to support those 4 assumptions?
Where would those exist? Why would imaginary time exist in the vertical direction?
Where would the vacuum come from in the imaginary time for the instanton to exist so it could pop into existence?
Talk about being dishonest.
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 2531 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2020 2:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2534 by Tangle, posted 08-14-2020 4:07 AM ICANT has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 2534 of 3207 (880917)
08-14-2020 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 2533 by ICANT
08-14-2020 3:48 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
ICANT writes:
So he believed in creation and a creator even though it was his instanton.
He was an atheist. Atheists do not believe in creators.
That’s it. The rest of the garbage is yours alone

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2533 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2020 3:48 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2537 by Phat, posted 08-14-2020 2:59 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 2542 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2020 1:23 AM Tangle has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 2535 of 3207 (880920)
08-14-2020 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 2530 by ICANT
08-14-2020 2:05 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
But we do know according to the standard theory that at T=0-43
for fucks sake ICANT if you're going to try to overturn known science at least learn some basic math.
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2530 by ICANT, posted 08-14-2020 2:05 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 2552 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2020 1:56 PM DrJones* has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024