MyM
Well-Known Member
that's ok not too good at jokin lol can't blame me if I use your logic lool
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If God existed would there be proof?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
MyM
Well-Known Member
I get that the joke is on both of us in the end. Where as you are special, so the joke is in one everybody else than you. LOL
that makes no sense lol
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
MyM
Well-Known Member
oh so when it pleases you that you are between a rock and a hard place, you slip into a worm and wiggle your way out of the situation? lol I see how it is lol you don't want to be blamed for any wrong. I get ya lol
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
MyM
Well-Known Member
lol are you certain? lool I do laugh to myself a lot actually when I read CERTAIN things that make me giggle inside. I am certain of it
I am a very passive person by nature. so my lol are my true giggles lol and not an escape mechanism that your doubtful uncertain certainty just claimed lol
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
lol are you certain? lool I do laugh to myself a lot actually when I read CERTAIN things that make me giggle inside. I am certain of it
No, you seem to be passive aggressive like me in some cases.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, the joke is that the truth comes at a minimum in 3 different versions, which are interconnected, but can't reduced to only one.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Show me something in science that has no first cause.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
But what caused the "first cause" if everything supposedly must have a cause?
Something that you might find interesting is that "infinity" does work out when used in mathematical formulas, and we use math a great deal in trying to understand our universe-- it works.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Which means there must an infinite being.But what caused the "first cause" if everything supposedly must have a cause?
Something that you might find interesting is that "infinity" does work out when used in mathematical formulas, and we use math a great deal in trying to understand our universe-- it works.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No, that's a false dichotomy fallacy. There is no objective evidence at all for any creator, whereas natural phenomena exist as an objective fact. So whilst I don't care to make unevidenced assumptions, I'd have to acknowledge that an as yet unknown natural phenomena is at least a possibility, whereas I am not aware of any objective evidence that a deity, from an archaic superstation, using inexplicable magic, is even possible. You're using what has been labelled a god of the gaps polemic, these usually involve an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
That's one good possibility, imo, but trying to deal with infinity is just a tad beyond my reach.
Or one could ask "What caused the infinite being?", but then we'd just be going in circles into infinity.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
By this rationale a deity would also require a cause, or you will have to use an arbitrary claim involving a special pleading fallacy.
the singularity in the Big Bang theory
setarcos
The hopeful or the hopeless?
Not at all. Singularities are an integral part of the theories of modern physics. They are based on solid mathematical proofs and evidenced in predicted observed phenomena.
I think your mistaking what science can't do with what science has done. The word "singularity", as with all language, is a label used to define the mathematical construct and its consequent effects on the reality it finds itself in. We cannot "observe" any of our reality directly except through the effects it has on its surroundings. We cannot observe atoms, we cannot observe its constituent parts, we cannot observe the fields of physics, we can't observe emotions, we can't observe pain, etc. except through their consequent effects on reality and then we can't even observe the true nature of those effects. Such is the limitations of the human condition. What science can do is construct proxy models for reality based upon observation and predictive probabilities. Certain "conditions" of what a black hole means can be theorized based on mathematical solutions to "observable" phenomena which are coherent within its framework.
Science cant tell us what a black hole ultimately is, it can't tell us what a charge is, what gravity is, what the quantum field is, but it does a pretty good job of telling us what they do to reality. How they behave or can be predicted to behave or effect reality which itself is a part of our reality. Einstein once opined that it was incredibly remarkable how mathematics so closely coincides with what its models can predict concerning the phenomena in the universe. So we may not be able to directly observe these phenomena and consequently "know" what they are but we do have some tools that can take us to places we cannot directly observe and thence know them by what they do.
Singularities are both. Like I've said, the word is simply a label applied to something which exhibits certain defining characteristics. In the case of black holes, considered to be singularities, the idea took form within scientific thinking from certain solutions of relativistic equations. It was an idea which may or may not have existence in reality. But upon the discovery and direct observation of black holes in reality, or the effects to reality which give shape to their cause it was then known that singularities do exist and effect reality. While the direct observation of the "innards" of a black hole is impossible it may be surmised to some extent what its effects on reality is or might be by the extensions of coherent mathematical models.
Is it possible that all our models are fundamentally flawed? Of course. But such is the limitations of human existence.
So far though....as long as the mathematics is coherent and logically consistent it is remarkably and demonstrably useful for studying and consequently predicting realistic phenomena.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No because we don't have to have a cause for an infinite being. Where as in science there are laws that regulate what is possible.