Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[ratiocinator]

Are you familiar with the concept of solipsism? (genuine question btw, not trying to be a smart arse).

Yes - but it's a bit of a dead end. In practical terms, there is a qualitative difference between (what appears to be) the outside world and what goes on in our minds and the former is inescapable and (appears to be) shared between everyone, so if it isn't real, it might as well be.

 

[KerimF]

nay.....He came so the blind will see

His parables are the light

you say you are a man of reason

Thank you for mentioning the word 'Light'.
Yes, as you said, Jesus came to give me the Light of Knowledge, nothing else. Isn't this what you liked to tell me?

Indeed, I owe Jesus almost all what I was able discovering of various crucial natural rules/truths about life so that I can walk in the world's jungle real free under the Light of True Knowledge. Without having such Light, a human has no choice but to be continuously confused while fearing the unknown.

 

[rational experiences]

No humans no stories.

Everything would still exist.

The reason we know. Each of us is one self. A human. We see the human self die. Everything else still exists.

One human living. One human dies. One human sees as a witness. One human experience.

A human is a human.
A human owns two human parents.

One human the man invented science.

We hear the voice of science a man as a he him.

A man is only defined a male by his body a penis.

A human says a God man.

A human is the man.

Science says I want the power of God.

Is God a man in science?

A particle science says. A power. A spirit. The creator of force and energy.

Which is not defined as a man male.

Yet all defined meaning is stated by a man human as conditions about gain. About control. About change.

If God is one state status then you could never change God. Other wise God would no longer exist.

 

[Thief]

The BB is not an explosion of something into into empty space. It's an expansion of space itself.

science has rules......

for every action.....an opposite and equal

motion in a straigt line

call it one way OR the other

without rotation in play BEFORE the 'expansion'......


the movement would have been ONE percussion wave
and hollow

 

[rational experiences]

Creation exists.

Science a human choice does not exist.

Science by determined I want is aligned to the design of a machine.

Then the machine is controlled by its human designer.

The laws science just inside of the machine as it is reacted.

No matter what you think. Theory or story tell. Science the state is human controlled.

Creation exists created was never science.

 

[ratiocinator]

science has rules......

for every action.....an opposite and equal

motion in a straigt line

call it one way OR the other

without rotation in play BEFORE the 'expansion'......


the movement would have been ONE percussion wave
and hollow

Just repeating your misunderstanding is not going to make it accurate. Look at the article I linked. The BB was not an explosion. The expansion isn't into empty space. The universe is expanding because the space-time metric (the thing that defines geometry and distance) is changing.

I have no idea why you think rotation is going to change anything if you're thinking of an explosion into space, you'd still get a shell, it would just be rotating. Neither is Newton's third law of much relevance. You're trying to apply Newtonian thinking to something that is only explainable by relativity.

 

[Thief]

Just repeating your misunderstanding is not going to make it accurate. Look at the article I linked. The BB was not an explosion. The expansion isn't into empty space. The universe is expanding because the space-time metric (the thing that defines geometry and distance) is changing.

I have no idea why you think rotation is going to change anything if you're thinking of an explosion into space, you'd still get a shell, it would just be rotating. Neither is Newton's third law of much relevance. You're trying to apply Newtonian thinking to something that is only explainable by relativity.

time is an invention of Man

not a force or substance

 

[Subduction Zone]

I assume you mean an abuse of the word know, rather than the word God?

I disagree. Language is fluid, and specific words generally offer a range of perfectly valid interpretations. The one I illustrated is legitimate linguistic currency which is widely recognised, I think.

No. It is an abuse because believers will jump from your very strained definition of claiming to "know" God to knowing that God exists.

 

[ratiocinator]

time is an invention of Man

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Einstein was wrong and @Thief knows everything.

The whole of general relativity is based on space-time, no amount of foot-stamping is going to change that.

not a force or substance

Nobody suggested it was.

 

[Thief]

No. It is an abuse because believers will jump from your very strained definition of claiming to "know" God to knowing that God exists.

pop this as a topic .......plesse

 

[Thief]

Nobody suggested it was.

so stop using it as your soap box

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretty sure you can say arse. There may be consequences, but I can’t imagine they’d be that dire.

Do you think slapping your interlocutor in the face is a demonstration of the strength or weakness of your arguments?

Yes, you can say arse here you cannot use,the preferred American term. Do you see it in my post? It should be there.


You asked a poor question about slapping a follower of solipsism. Can you spot your error?

 

[Subduction Zone]

pop this as a topic .......plesse

No. We will only get false claims by believers that will then run away and not support their claims.

 

[firedragon]

If you're talking about the universe (as opposed to the observable universe), as I said, it doesn't have a centre or an edge and the 'radius of the universe' is a rather misleading term for the scale factor in the metric.

I truly am trying to understand how you missed this simple statement several times.

In the hot Big Bang model, how is the radii calculated to get the division of temperature?

I also noted that you ended up with the figure of 1 in 10^10^123, which is due to Roger Penrose (not sure what you mean by "Turin test"*)

Maybe you should read his book. Read the chapter on it. Then you will understand.

He has proposed his own solutions. You might want to look up the Weyl curvature hypothesis or maybe his speculative cosmology in Cycles of Time.

You have misunderstood WEYL curvature hypothesis. It does not address the points I raised. You see, it is a response to the question of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Where did it come from. It does not give a solution to the

Ill tell you what! Read Penroses book. Then maybe you will realise that the WCP is not his solution to his calculations of the efficiency of the aim. No. In fact, he uses WCP to come up with this calculation.

Again. Could you try to respond to the whole post rather than a cherry picked sentence or two? Please try. Only then it is a valid discussion.

 

[Thief]

No. We will only get false claims by believers that will then run away and not support their claims.

hehehehehe

 

[ratiocinator]

so stop using it as your soap box

I'm not, I'm engaged in the apparently futile task of trying to drag your knowledge of science at least into the 20th century.

General relativity (which you need to apply to understand the BB and expanding universe) is based on space-time (which isn't a force or a substance) but is the underlying manifold.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so stop using it as your soap box

He didn't.

 

[Thief]

I'm not, I'm engaged in the apparently futile task of trying to drag your knowledge of science at least into the 20th century..

ok....just for fun.....

explain...manifold

hehehehehe

 

[ratiocinator]

In the hot Big Bang model, how is the radii calculated to get the division of temperature?

Perhaps you should link to an actual (science) source that describes what you're on about. The 'radius' could be the scale factor or perhaps the Hubble radius.

Maybe you should read his book. Read the chapter on it. Then you will understand.

I have done.

Could you try to respond to the whole post rather than a cherry picked sentence or two?

It's too incoherent. You seem to be talking about things you don't understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not, I'm engaged in the apparently futile task of trying to drag your knowledge of science at least into the 20th century.

General relativity (which you need to apply to understand the BB and expanding universe) is based on space-time (which isn't a force or a substance) but is the underlying manifold.

I have some sympathy. The concepts behind relativity can make my brain hurt. Heck! The concepts of integral calculus are getting more difficult as I age. Screw Newton, I am sticking with Galilean gravity.