• 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!

Atheists believe in miracles more than believers

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Your foolish worship of science is stopping you from even understanding the question at hand. You can keep throwing your science turds around if you want, but so far you haven't even entered the conversation. Because it's a philosophical discussion/debate. Not science.
Another tantrum. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out before, you are using science to construct your options - at least you're trying to. Saying we face an eternal past, some unexplained 'poofing', or non-physical magic, is a scientific statement, whether you like it or not. You are trying to use our understanding of the physical world to argue for something beyond it.

To do that successfully, you need a proper understanding of the physical world, not one you've cobbled together from 100 years out of date idea of how time works and a much more recent idea of a start of the universe, so it suits your own preferred answer.

If you want to restate it without scientific assumptions, I'm happy to stop talking about science. Until you do that, I'll keep on correcting your misunderstandings.
 

vijeno

Active Member
No scientist has ever seen the beginning of the universe.

The moment anybody figures out precisely how it all started, it will instantly be replaced by one more step towards the infinite regress.

A bit more on the serious side, I think we cannot ever reach the absolute "beginning", because our brains cannot comprehend it.

It's like trying to think of "nothing". You just can't.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Another tantrum. :rolleyes:

As I pointed out before, you are using science to construct your options - at least you're trying to. Saying we face an eternal past, some unexplained 'poofing', or non-physical magic, is a scientific statement, whether you like it or not. You are trying to use our understanding of the physical world to argue for something beyond it.
As a scientism cultist, you think fantastic speculations based on pseudo-scientific jargon trumps philosophy and becomes truth. But of course this is just more tossing turds in complete ignorance of the actual discussion at hand.
To do that successfully, you need a proper understanding of the physical world, not one you've cobbled together from 100 years out of date idea of how time works and a much more recent idea of a start of the universe, so it suits your own preferred answer.
The question being asked preempts the advent of the physical world, so this is complete nonsense.
If you want to restate it without scientific assumptions, I'm happy to stop talking about science. Until you do that, I'll keep on correcting your misunderstandings.
Science is irrelevant to this philosophical quandry. And since you cannot comprehend anything apart from your scientism, you don't really have any hope of contributing anything but more of this turd-tossing to this discussion.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
The moment anybody figures out precisely how it all started, it will instantly be replaced by one more step towards the infinite regress.

A bit more on the serious side, I think we cannot ever reach the absolute "beginning", because our brains cannot comprehend it.

It's like trying to think of "nothing". You just can't.
Or like trying to comprehend 'God' (the transcendence of both something and nothing).
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
As a scientism cultist, you think fantastic speculations based on pseudo-scientific jargon trumps philosophy and becomes truth. But of course this is just more turd tossing in complete ignorance of the actual discussion at hand.
You didn't address my point, and much of this is simply false.

The question being asked preempts the advent of the physical world, so this is complete nonsense.
You are again sidestepping how you arrived at your proposed options. Even using the phrase "advent of the physical world" suggests that you think it had a start and are rejecting the modern notion of space-time.

If you want to use logic, you need to understand it. Specifically, that you'll never construct a sound argument unless your premises are accepted. Your premises here relate to scientific questions. Can you really not see that?

Science is irrelevant to this philosophical conversation. And since you cannot comprehend anything apart from your scientism, you don't really have any hope of contributing anything but more of this turd-tossing to this discussion.
Oh, do stop with the silly tantrums. It's not a good look.

You cannot possibly know what I do or don't know, and so far, you seem to be unable to comprehend that I am addressing the argument as you presented it. You can't do philosophy if you insist on starting with assumptions about the physical world that are plain wrong.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Just as a matter of interest, would you believe there are things existing that we can't see?
There are many things we can't see.
Some we might later on.
Some we might not.
And some are merely imagined.
I don't treat what's imagined as real.
I'm not talking about birds I have never seen, or places I personally have never been to, but things that we, as humans, cannot see with our physical eyes.
I grokked that you didn't mean birds.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Science is irrelevant to this philosophical quandry.
Just to add, this is an unforced error on your part, you could easily have framed your question without making scientific assumptions—I'll do it for you if you want—but listing the options becomes harder, and you wouldn't have the satisfaction of trying to ridicule others with the 'poofing' nonsense or trying to dismiss an infinite past. Perhaps those things were important to you?

You've created a totally unnecessary problem for yourself, for the sake of trying to make things simpler than they actually are.

Here is a video from Edward Feser (Christian and professor of philosophy), who actually avoids your mistake. Unfortunately, it's over an hour long, the first half is tedious, and the second is comically absurd, but you might at least learn how to avoid scientific premises. And, yes, I did watch it, albeit some time ago when talking to somebody else about this.

 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What do you say the universe is made of, if not mass-energy?

What do you say God is made of, if not just someone's imagination?
I totally agree with the point you're making, but, for the record, both mass and energy are properties, so nothing can be made of them.

As far as we can tell at the present, the universe is made of quantum fields and(?) space-time.

/pedantry
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I totally agree with the point you're making, but, for the record, both mass and energy are properties, so nothing can be made of them.

As far as we can tell at the present, the universe is made of quantum fields and(?) space-time.

/pedantry
But are not quantum fields made of energy? Can there be space-time in the absence of energy?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
You didn't address my point, and much of this is simply false.
Because it was irrelevant pseudoscientific fantasy. I realize that you cannot see this, but that's not my fault, nor my job to correct. I honestly don't know what or why you're even arguing.
You are again sidestepping how you arrived at your proposed options.
I have explained this many times now, in this thread. One more time is not going to help you to understand. Because all you want to do is fight it.
Even using the phrase "advent of the physical world" suggests that you think it had a start and are rejecting the modern notion of space-time.
It's not a question of when. It's a question of possibility. What made existing possible? When (time) is a part of existing, so it is not relevant to the question at hand. Same goes for all expressions of physicality (i.e., science). I have stated this many times, but for some reason it's not getting through.
If you want to use logic, you need to understand it. Specifically, that you'll never construct a sound argument unless your premises are accepted. Your premises here relate to scientific questions. Can you really not see that?
I am not responsible for your inability to accept a logical premise. And I don't play the kangaroo court game.
Oh, do stop with the silly tantrums. It's not a good look.
There are no tantrums. Just because someone points out your continued failure to understand something doesn't mean they are throwing a tantrum. But if it make you feel better about yourself to imagine it, then so be it.
You cannot possibly know what I do or don't know, and so far, you seem to be unable to comprehend that I am addressing the argument as you presented it. You can't do philosophy if you insist on starting with assumptions about the physical world that are plain wrong.
I don't care what you do or don't know. I am simply responding to what you're posting. Though I can see that it is of no benefit to either of us.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
But are not quantum fields made of energy? Can there be space-time in the absence of energy?
The problem is that we have no idea what energy actually IS. We can only see what it does. For all we know energy is 'God's will'. But no atheist is ever going to accept that possibility, so they have to insist that it's something scientific and materialistic. Because to afmit that we don't know opens the door to possibilities they refuse to accept.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Your foolish worship of science is stopping you from even understanding the question at hand.

I have noticed that every time that someone decides to not ignore the findings of science when disagreeing with you, you tend to call it "worshipping science".
What's that about?

You can keep throwing your science turds around if you want

"turds"?
:rolleyes:

but so far you haven't even entered the conversation. Because it's a philosophical discussion/debate. Not science.
Discussions about the origins of the universe, are very much scientific discussions.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
As a scientism cultist

There you go again....
Someone refuses to ignore science leading to disagreement with your claims, and there you are again: "scientism cultist".
So predictable.

, you think fantastic speculations based on pseudo-scientific jargon trumps philosophy and becomes truth. But of course this is just more tossing turds in complete ignorance of the actual discussion at hand.

The implications and conclusions of things like general relativity are not "pseudo-scientific jargon".
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Your foolish worship of science is stopping you from even understanding the question at hand. You can keep throwing your science turds around if you want, but so far you haven't even entered the conversation. Because it's a philosophical discussion/debate. Not science.
Now this is what I call a well formed, rational rebuttal in a philosophical debate!

rofl-lol.gif
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There are many things we can't see.
Some we might later on.
Some we might not.
And some are merely imagined.
I don't treat what's imagined as real.

I grokked that you didn't mean birds.
OK, that's good you understand my little comparison there about not seeing birds, etc. But a poster brought up about radio waves -- and I assume (but I don't know what science teaches about radio waves, whether they were in existence before radios, but I figure they were.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But are not quantum fields made of energy?
No, they have energy.

Can there be space-time in the absence of energy?
Probably not, that doesn't mean that it's made of energy.

Energy is a quantity that is conserved as a result of the fact that the laws of physics don't change over time, just like momentum is conserved because they don't vary from place to place. It isn't 'stuff'. It's actually rather debatable if energy is actually conserved at all for the whole universe.

The conservation of energy is a common feature in many physical theories. From a mathematical point of view it is understood as a consequence of Noether's theorem, developed by Emmy Noether in 1915 and first published in 1918. In any physical theory that obeys the stationary-action principle, the theorem states that every continuous symmetry has an associated conserved quantity; if the theory's symmetry is time invariance, then the conserved quantity is called "energy". The energy conservation law is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time; energy conservation is implied by the empirical fact that the laws of physics do not change with time itself. Philosophically this can be stated as "nothing depends on time per se". In other words, if the physical system is invariant under the continuous symmetry of time translation, then its energy (which is the canonical conjugate quantity to time) is conserved. Conversely, systems that are not invariant under shifts in time (e.g. systems with time-dependent potential energy) do not exhibit conservation of energy – unless we consider them to exchange energy with another, external system so that the theory of the enlarged system becomes time-invariant again. Conservation of energy for finite systems is valid in physical theories such as special relativity and quantum theory (including QED) in the flat space-time.
...
With the discovery of special relativity by Henri Poincaré and Albert Einstein, energy was proposed to be one component of an energy-momentum 4-vector.
...
Thus, the rule of conservation of energy over time in special relativity continues to hold, so long as the reference frame of the observer is unchanged. This applies to the total energy of systems, although different observers disagree as to the energy value.
...
General relativity introduces new phenomena. In an expanding universe, photons spontaneously redshift and tethers spontaneously gain tension; if vacuum energy is positive, the total vacuum energy of the universe appears to spontaneously increase as the volume of space increases. Some scholars claim that energy is no longer meaningfully conserved in any identifiable form.
Energy-momentum is typically expressed with the aid of a stress–energy–momentum pseudotensor. However, since pseudotensors are not tensors, they do not transform cleanly between reference frames. If the metric under consideration is static (that is, does not change with time) or asymptotically flat (that is, at an infinite distance away spacetime looks empty), then energy conservation holds without major pitfalls. In practice, some metrics, notably the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric that appears to govern the universe, do not satisfy these constraints and energy conservation is not well defined.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The problem is that we have no idea what energy actually IS. We can only see what it does. For all we know energy is 'God's will'. But no atheist is ever going to accept that possibility, so they have to insist that it's something scientific and materialistic. Because to afmit that we don't know opens the door to possibilities they refuse to accept.
Although I am certainly not a scientist by any means it seems logical to me that we have no idea what energy is. Except that often now that I'm getting older I would like to have more energy. (Interesting, isn't it? I think so. That we have what is called energy.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
OK, that's good you understand my little comparison there about not seeing birds, etc. But a poster brought up about radio waves -- and I assume (but I don't know what science teaches about radio waves, whether they were in existence before radios, but I figure they were.
Radio waves are "seen"....or more accurately "detected"
using devices. This is how many things are known, eg,
viruses, black holes, gravity waves, DNA, magnetism.
BTW, radio waves are a natural phenomenon that
happens independently of humans.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
The moment anybody figures out precisely how it all started, it will instantly be replaced by one more step towards the infinite regress.

A bit more on the serious side, I think we cannot ever reach the absolute "beginning", because our brains cannot comprehend it.

It's like trying to think of "nothing". You just can't.
I agree. And that's why to me it's logical that there is a God that transcends the universe. And beginnings. :) Thanks for your thoughtful post.
 
Top