Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

But all the big bang is is a spontaneous creation of matter. It happens all the time. And there is no statistical upper bound for both the size and the duration that this matter can pop into existence. It is the reality. Given enough time, a big particle can come into existence. It is just very statistically unlikely. But given enough time...

Too hypothetical to be included into the realm of certainties.

 

[PolyHedral]

The universe cannot be eternal.

The universe must be eternal, because "eternal" can only be defined in terms of the universe. Remember, time is part of and depends upon the universe. To say the universe is not eternal is somewhat akin to saying that the North Pole can't be on Earth.

Philosophers are learnt people; even wise without necessarily have learnt. Aristotle could never conceive that something could have come out of nothing. Matter, by definition is under the law of genesis and destruction. Since the universe is made out of matter, it obviously must have had a beginning.

Aristotle was wrong. Uncaused causes exist.

But eternity is restricted to the Supreme Reality Which had made possible all realities. Now, anyone without atheistic pre-conceived notions can see that you are contradicting yourself. You claim the ridiculous thought that something should have come from nothing, and without cause, but with the same breath claim that matter had no beginning and therefore will have no end. That's a theory that Scientists can never prove.

I'm going to interrupt you here to point out that conservation of mass-energy is proven to the point that to doubt it entails doubting logical identity. To say that mass or energy is destroyed or created is implicitly saying that the universe is not consistent, which is the most absurd of all impossibilities.

Today that the Cosmos is crowded with matter that is born and die, as has been scientifically proved by the death of stars, the alternative of the Philosophical Primal Cause/Mover is not so ridiculous after all.

Stars do not die. They are merely redistributed. A "star" is just a collection of gas. The gas continues on after the star falls apart.

And here is the kick-back: The Suprime Reality has created the nature by which all stuff exist.

Back this up. Somehow. Anyhow. But show, somehow, that this statement is correct and that the opposite is wrong.

Not every one can claim the same kind of reality. Pharaoh Akhenaten could never conceive the reality of the Unseen God of the Patriarchs.

He certainly could. It probably never occured to him, but if the idea were explained to him, he could have almost certainly comprehended it.

I know that's kind of hard to conceive the Absolute Spiritual Reality, but if you can't stretch your mind that high, at least, the benefit of the doubt should be given the chance.

I am absolutely convinced there is no such thing as "spirituality" in any form, but that conviction relies on an assumption. Do you feel you could prove my assumption wrong?

Too hypothetical to be included into the realm of certainties.

The uncertainty principle is not hypothetical. It is a fact. Indeed, it is a fact more fundamental than any macroscopic phenomenon you are familiar with.

 

[Jacksnyte]

The universe must be eternal, because "eternal" can only be defined in terms of the universe. Remember, time is part of and depends upon the universe. To say the universe is not eternal is somewhat akin to saying that the North Pole can't be on Earth.

Aristotle was wrong.

I'm going to interrupt you here to point out that conservation of mass-energy is proven to the point that to doubt it entails doubting logical identity. To say that mass or energy is destroyed or created is implicitly saying that the universe is not consistent, which is the most absurd of all impossibilities.

Stars do not die. They are merely redistributed. A "star" is just a collection of gas. The gas continues on after the star falls apart.

Back this up. Somehow. Anyhow. But show, somehow, that this statement is correct and that the opposite is wrong.
He certainly could. It probably never occured to him, but if the idea were explained to Him, he could have almost certainly comprehended it.

I am absolutely convinced there is no such thing as "spirituality" in any form, but that conviction relies on an assumption. Do you feel you could prove my assumption wrong?


The uncertainty principle is not hypothetical. It is a fact. Indeed, it is a fact more fundamental than any macroscopic phenomenon you are familiar with.

You mean Heisenberg?
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum mechanics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states by precise inequalities that certain pairs of physical properties, such as position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrarily high precision. That is, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be measured.
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and the momentum of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. This is not a statement about researchers' ability to measure the quantities. Rather, it is a statement about the system itself. That is, a system cannot be defined to have simultaneously singular values of these pairs of quantities. The principle states that a minimum exists for the product of the uncertainties in these properties that is equal to or greater than one half of the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2&#960.
In quantum physics, a particle is described by a wave packet, which gives rise to this phenomenon. Consider the measurement of the position of a particle. It could be anywhere. The particle's wave packet has non-zero amplitude, meaning the position is uncertain – it could be almost anywhere along the wave packet. To obtain an accurate reading of position, this wave packet must be 'compressed' as much as possible, meaning it must be made up of increasing numbers of sine wavesadded together. The momentum of the particle is proportional to the wavenumber of one of these waves, but it could be any of them. So a more precise position measurement – by adding together more waves – means the momentum measurement becomes less precise (and vice versa).
The only kind of wave with a definite position is concentrated at one point, and such a wave has an indefinite wavelength (and therefore an indefinite momentum). Conversely, the only kind of wave with a definite wavelength is an infinite regular periodic oscillation over all space, which has no definite position. So in quantum mechanics, there can be no states that describe a particle with both a definite position and a definite momentum. The more precise the position, the less precise the momentum.
A mathematical statement of the principle is that every quantum state has the property that the root mean square (RMS) deviation of the position from its mean (the standard deviation of the x-distribution):

times the RMS deviation of the momentum from its mean (the standard deviation of p):

can never be smaller than a fixed fraction of Planck's constant:

The uncertainty principle can be restated in terms of other measurement processes, which involves collapse of the wavefunction. When the position is initially localized by preparation, the wavefunction collapses to a narrow bump in an interval Δx > 0, and the momentum wavefunction becomes spread out. The particle's momentum is left uncertain by an amount inversely proportional to the accuracy of the position measurement:

.If the initial preparation in Δx is understood as an observation or disturbance of the particles then this means that the uncertainty principle is related to the observer effect. However, this is not true in the case of the measurement process corresponding to the former inequality but only for the latter inequality.

 

[839311]

You claim the ridiculous thought that something should have come from nothing, and without cause, but with the same breath claim that matter had no beginning and therefore will have no end.

No, I only claimed the latter. I stated quite clearly that I don't believe that something can come from nothing.

And here is the kick-back: The Suprime Reality has created the nature by which all stuff exist.

Created out of what? Are you saying that God has created reality out of nothing? Like he 'wished' reality into existence?

I think its possible that beings could have power to 'shape' reality on a cosmic scale, out of stuff that already exists. But create out of nothing? Thats nonsense.

Secondly, If we are to assume that God exists, then the same questions have to apply to him. You can't evade the question by saying he is outside of reality. Thats not helpful at all. If he exists, then he is real, and is thus a part of reality. The same question still applies. Did God have a beginning, or has he always existed? Im convinced that anything that exists has always existed. So, the stuff of which God exists never had a beginning. However, God could have had a beginning similar to how we were born. The stuff that we are made of always existed, but only when it came together in the right way were we born.

 

[Ben Masada]

The universe must be eternal, because "eternal" can only be defined in terms of the universe. Remember, time is part of and depends upon the universe. To say the universe is not eternal is somewhat akin to saying that the North Pole can't be on Earth.

Your ratonaization for the eternity of the universe is fallatious. The universe is made out of matter, and matter cannot be eternal. And time does not depend upon the universe per se but upon motion. The parts of the universe must move so that time be an accident of.

Aristotle was wrong.

And so are you.

I'm going to interrupt you here to point out that conservation of mass-energy is proven to the point that to doubt it entails doubting logical identity. To say that mass or energy is destroyed or created is implicitly saying that the universe is not consistent, which is the most absurd of all impossibilities.

Who said anything about energy? I am talking about matter. Energy is an accident of matter. The death of matter or its transformation is a sysnonym of each other. Energy is preserved in the new form that matter takes but in a different perspective.

Stars do not die. They are merely redistributed. A "star" is just a collection of gas. The gas continues on after the star falls apart.

In that case, Astrophysicists are liars, because they do speak of death of stars. Do you still remember what is a Supernova? It is a rare celestial phenomenon involving the explosion of most of the material in a star, resulting in a extremely bright short-lived object that tha emits a vast amount of energy. That's what they call the death of a star. If stars did not die, they would not use the word "death of stars." Oh! but you do mention above that stars falling apart. Another synonym for death. Thank you. The gas, which had been an accident of the star that "fell apart" aggregates to another star or to the remains of the dead one.

Back this up. Somehow. Anyhow. But show, somehow, that this statement is correct and that the opposite is wrong.

I am not going to show you in a spiritual manner because you won't get it. But that the universe shows the glory of its Creator has been written in the bestseller ever in the History of the world, and for about 4000 years already. And for the opposite view, all you have as evidence are theories that are born and die before they mature into facts from a generation into another.

He certainly could. It probably never occured to him, but if the idea were explained to him, he could have almost certainly comprehended it.

What makes you think that the idea was not explained to him, and even more than several times? During the reign of Akhenaten, the Levites were dispensed from slavery work so that they could get involved in the priestly studies of their holy books. It is almost a matter of fact that Akhenaten woul get lessons about Jewish Monotheism. He just didn't have what it takes to be spiritual in the Patriarchal concept of an Unseen and Incorporeal God. Besides, where do you think he plagiarized the monotheistic concept of one only God if not from the Priests and Levites?

I am absolutely convinced there is no such thing as "spirituality" in any form, but that conviction relies on an assumption. Do you feel you could prove my assumption wrong?

If your conviction relies on the fact that there is no such a thing as "spirituality" is absolute, what can I say which will prove your assumption wrong? Those who desire to be spiritual in truth, and not brutes, having only the appearance and shape of man, must constantly endeavour to reduce the wants of the body, such as eating, sex, drinking, anger, and ill vices originating in lust and passion. Then, in a meditational communication with the One Who is a Spirit and Incorporeal, the exercise must be in a spiritual manner, almost telepatically. With such a disposition, the Lord reveals Himself to one by way of a dream or vision, which is the lucide phase of the dream. The other day I went to sleep worried about how could a prove to a questioner about the absolutely unity of God, when I was taken by a spiritual dream, according to Numbers 12:6. In the lucid phase of that dream, the following explanation came to my mind:

Absolute Unity of God

Isaiah says that, absolutely, God cannot be compared with anyone or anything, as we read Isaiah 46:5. "To whom will ye liken Me, and make Me equal to , or compare Me with, that we may be alike?" Therefore, more than one God would have been unable to produce the world; one would have impeded the work of the other, unless this could be avoided by a suitable division of labour. More than one Divine Being would have one element in common, and would differ in another; each would thus consist of two elements, and would not be God. More than one God are moved to action by will; the will, without a substratum, could not act simultaneously in more than one being. Therefore, the existence of one God is proved; the existence of more than one God cannot be proved. One could suggest that it would be possible; but since as possibility is inapplicable to God, there does not exist more than one God. So, the possibilitly of ascertaining the existence of God is here confounded with potentiality of existence.

Again, if one God suffices, a second or third God would be supperfluous; if one God is not sufficient, he is not perfect, and cannot be a deity. Now, besides being God absolutely One, He is incorporeal. If God were corporeal, He would consist of atoms, and would not be one; or he would be comparable to other beings; but a comparison implies the existence of similar and of dissimilar elements, and God would thus not be One. A corporeal God would be finite, and an external power would be required to define those limits.

The uncertainty principle is not hypothetical. It is a fact. Indeed, it is a fact more fundamental than any macroscopic phenomenon you are familiar with.

Anything hypothetical is of the category of a theory. And worse than a not-proved theory, it can be refuted and killed right there and then for being considered only conventionally.

 

[Ben Masada]

No, I only claimed the latter. I stated quite clearly that I don't believe that something can come from nothing.



Created out of what? Are you saying that God has created reality out of nothing? Like he 'wished' reality into existence?

I think its possible that beings could have power to 'shape' reality on a cosmic scale, out of stuff that already exists. But create out of nothing? Thats nonsense.

Secondly, If we are to assume that God exists, then the same questions have to apply to him. You can't evade the question by saying he is outside of reality. Thats not helpful at all. If he exists, then he is real, and is thus a part of reality. The same question still applies. Did God have a beginning, or has he always existed? Im convinced that anything that exists has always existed. So, the stuff of which God exists never had a beginning. However, God could have had a beginning similar to how we were born. The stuff that we are made of always existed, but only when it came together in the right way were we born.

Oh! I got you. You are talking bout the anthropomorphic god of religions, as you claim that "God could have had a beginning similar to how we were born." So, you must bring this argument to the Theists of anthropomorphic Theology. The God a am trying to reveal unto you, according to Ezekiel 20:41 is not like a man to be born the way man is. Are you referring to Jesus, perhaps? BTW, Jesus himself understood as I do that God is an Incorporeal Spirit, who is not part of the universe. (John 4:24)
No, God has always existed, inherent existence. The only Being Who enjoys eternity. The only Being not subject to genesis and destruction. Only spiritually, you are able to understad such a Theology.

 

[PolyHedral]

Who said anything about energy? I am talking about matter. Energy is an accident of matter.

You keep saying this. Prove it. Build a mathematical model of the universe that does not involve energy, only matter.

In that case, Astrophysicists are liars, because they do speak of death of stars. Do you still remember what is a Supernova? It is a rare celestial phenomenon involving the explosion of most of the material in a star, resulting in a extremely bright short-lived object that tha emits a vast amount of energy. That's what they call the death of a star. If stars did not die, they would not use the word "death of stars." Oh! but you do mention above that stars falling apart. Another synonym for death. Thank you. The gas, which had been an accident of the star that "fell apart" aggregates to another star or to the remains of the dead one.

Is it appropriate to say ITER "dies?" Is it appropriate to say Jupiter "dies," when a lump of metal isn't even alive in the first place?

I am not going to show you in a spiritual manner because you won't get it. But that the universe shows the glory of its Creator has been written in the bestseller ever in the History of the world, and for about 4000 years already. And for the opposite view, all you have as evidence are theories that are born and die before they mature into facts from a generation into another.

Well, yes. The facts have already been observed. To say that the universe is only 10,000 years old directly contradicts what can be seen quite clearly. You don't even need any supporting theory, only physical measurements.

What makes you think that the idea was not explained to him, and even more than several times? During the reign of Akhenaten, the Levites were dispensed from slavery work so that they could get involved in the priestly studies of their holy books.

Historical citation, please.

It is almost a matter of fact that Akhenaten woul get lessons about Jewish Monotheism. He just didn't have what it takes to be spiritual in the Patriarchal concept of an Unseen and Incorporeal God. Besides, where do you think he plagiarized the monotheistic concept of one only God if not from the Priests and Levites?

The people the Levites stole it from? Isn't it the Bible itself that says there is nothing new under the sun?

If your conviction relies on the fact that there is no such a thing as "spirituality" is absolute, what can I say which will prove your assumption wrong?

You can demonstrate a fairly simple fact about the brain. If you want to utterly destroy my conviction, you only have to demonstrate that the brain is not simulatable by an arbitararily powerful computer of any design.

[Lots of stuff about properties of God]

Everything you have jsut said is completely nonsensical, because to say that God is anything involves comparing him to something, and Isiah says you can't do that.

Anything hypothetical is of the category of a theory. And worse than a not-proved theory, it can be refuted and killed right there and then for being considered only conventionally.

Refute the uncertainty principle, then.

 

[839311]

The God a am trying to reveal unto you, according to Ezekiel 20:41 is not like a man to be born the way man is. No, God has always existed, inherent existence. The only Being Who enjoys eternity. The only Being not subject to genesis and destruction.

Its too bad God can't speak for himself. Then we wouldn't even be talking about this. If he was real, we'd know. However, no one seems to know anything. Everyone has their own subjective opinion. There have been thousands of religions and countless people 'claiming' to know divine secrets. Rubbish. The only place that god seems to exist is in peoples' minds.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Tell you what Ben, I'll match your bet. I will instantly convert to Christianity as soon as you can explain to me where God came from.

 

[Thief]

Thief, you can speculate whatever scenarios you want. Matters of faith are just like that.

When push comes to shove, however, it takes the scientific method to reach conclusions and beliefs that are reliable.

And science can actually work...in void?

Mixing science and theology?

Or just making denial?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

And time does not depend upon the universe per se but upon motion. The parts of the universe must move so that time be an accident of.

Indeed time is a measurement of change of state...and one example is movement or velocity and another is radioactive decay....time will exist whilst matter and energy can change states.

Upon the heat death of the universe time will cease to pass as the entire universe will have atrophied (the very atoms decayed) into pure energy..

However this does not reconcilliate with the notion of 4 dimensional spacetime..in which time itself is a spatial dimensional as real as length width or height.

Perhaps there is more than one type of time...Hawkins talks of imaginary time...something unnconnected to 'real' time...perhaps although unconnected at least the concept of different forms of time is not without precedent.

 

[Thief]

Indeed time is a measurement of change of state...and one example is movement or velocity and another is radioactive decay....time will exist whilst matter and energy can change states.

Upon the heat death of the universe time will cease to pass as the entire universe will have atrophied (the very atoms decayed) into pure energy..

However this does not reconcilliate with the notion of 4 dimensional spacetime..in which time itself is a spatial dimensional as real as length width or height.

Perhaps there is more than one type of time...Hawkins talks of imaginary time...something unnconnected to 'real' time...perhaps although unconnected at least the concept of different forms of time is not without precedent.

Time is a quotient...on a chalk board.

It is not a force nor substance.

Time is only a measurement. A cognitive tool.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

Fighting Two Fronts

Well, my dear hosts, you have become famous for the cliche that God does not exist. I have news for you. I am ready to become an Atheist. Yes, just like you; as soon as you tell me where the Universe comes from. I mean, how the Universe came about without a Creator or the Primal Mover, to coin Philosophical rhetoric.

Well, you are in. Let us get down to business about the issue of the Universe without a Creator, will ya?

Ben

Hello Ben,

When we talk about a creator for the universe, he/she/it must be outside of the universe. And this talk about the creator then raises the question, 'who created the creator?'. Assuming there is a creator of the universe, my question then becomes ' why should I worship this creator?'. Just because he/she/it created the universe? That doesn't seem ample reason for worshiping something.
Let me put it this way: Suppose the universe was created through random chance, does it then mean that random chance is our creator and hence must be worth worship? Should it mean that we must all worship probability and statistics?
The correct question, and the one I think everyone seems to be missing is not the issue of a universe without a creator, but a universe created by something worth worshiping.

FTP

 

[Ben Masada]

Hello Ben,

When we talk about a creator for the universe, he/she/it must be outside of the universe. And this talk about the creator then raises the question, 'who created the creator?'. Assuming there is a creator of the universe, my question then becomes ' why should I worship this creator?'. Just because he/she/it created the universe? That doesn't seem ample reason for worshiping something.
Let me put it this way: Suppose the universe was created through random chance, does it then mean that random chance is our creator and hence must be worth worship? Should it mean that we must all worship probability and statistics?
The correct question, and the one I think everyone seems to be missing is not the issue of a universe without a creator, but a universe created by something worth worshiping.

FTP

Shalom FTP. What is this talk about worshiping? Have I mentioned anything about worshiping? The Creator of the universe does not need our worshiping. It makes no difference if half of the world worships God and half doesn't. That's not the reason why we were created for. According to Proverbs 1:7, the fear (love) of God is the beginning of wisdom; knowledge that only fools despise. God for me is not for worshiping but for a reason to enhance my curiosity to know. And about that reason to implement one's knowledge, I won't dispute if in you it is different. Not everyone needs to have the same reason to increase his or her knowledge, which is all that life is about.

 

[Ben Masada]

Indeed time is a measurement of change of state...and one example is movement or velocity and another is radioactive decay....time will exist whilst matter and energy can change states.

Upon the heat death of the universe time will cease to pass as the entire universe will have atrophied (the very atoms decayed) into pure energy..

However this does not reconcilliate with the notion of 4 dimensional spacetime..in which time itself is a spatial dimensional as real as length width or height.

Perhaps there is more than one type of time...Hawkins talks of imaginary time...something unnconnected to 'real' time...perhaps although unconnected at least the concept of different forms of time is not without precedent.

As I started reading this post of yours above, I thought you had understood the concept of time as an accident of motion. Now, you are talking about dimensions of time as if time had forms. And there is only one type of time. What differs is the lenghth of time, which depends with the extension of movement of matter.

And what is this about atoms in matter being decayed into pure energy? Energy is an accident of matter. As matter takes other forms in its death or transformation of substance, energy does not decay. It rather continues in its role as an accident of the different form matter has taken.

 

[PolyHedral]

And what is this about atoms in matter being decayed into pure energy? Energy is an accident of matter. As matter takes other forms in its death or transformation of substance, energy does not decay. It rather continues in its role as an accident of the different form matter has taken.

When I smash a proton into an anti-proton, what do I get out?

 

[Ben Masada]

Tell you what Ben, I'll match your bet. I will instantly convert to Christianity as soon as you can explain to me where God came from.

Behold another one who answers questions with questions. It only means you don't have an answer to my question about the origin of the universe. Then, you didn't read my thread about "Fighting Two Fronts." You would not assume that I am a Christian. Even converted to Christianity, you would still stay within one of the fronts I fight against.

Regarding where God comes from (not came from), God is not an accident of time, as there is no time in eternity. God Is and has always existed. Existence is of His essence. Unless you are referring to the anthropomorphic god of religions. Then, you must ask a Christian before you "instantly convert to Christianity." As far as I am concern, their god must have come from some Olympic Pantheon of Greek gods which they borrowed a Jew to incarnate him with.

But really, where does God, the Creator of the universe come from? Einstein was once asked if he believed in God. He answered and said that all his life was to catch God at His work of creation. Then, he went out to deliver a lecture about the expansion of the universe. As you know, Science has proved that the universe does expand, although Scientists still don't know how. If Einstein was right, it could very well be that's God at His work of creation. Then, he died and left to us to continue with the researching. I am researching. But I already can tell you that there is no where nor when about the true God. He is not restricted to space or time. In the meantime, commit to memory that the universe is a show of His handiwork. (Psalm 19:1)

 

[Ben Masada]

When I smash a proton into an anti-proton, what do I get out?

Energy of course! Are your questions that easy, or you are testing me with a joke? Haven't I said that energy is an accident of matter?

 

[PolyHedral]

Energy of course! Are your questions that easy, or you are testing me with a joke? Haven't I said that energy is an accident of matter?

But there isn't any matter left. Nor is there any mass. You can't have an "accident" of a thing when that thing isn't there to begin with.

 

[Ben Masada]

Its too bad God can't speak for himself. Then we wouldn't even be talking about this. If he was real, we'd know. However, no one seems to know anything. Everyone has their own subjective opinion. There have been thousands of religions and countless people 'claiming' to know divine secrets. Rubbish. The only place that god seems to exist is in peoples' minds.

God is not like a man to speak. Even to the Prophets of Israel, highly spiritual men, God would make Himself and His will known only through a vision or dream. (Numb. 12:6) And you are right that no one seems to know anything. For example, you don't know where and how the universe came about. It seems to me that the only thing you know is that God does not exist. If the Psalmist says that the universe declares the handiwork of God, according to Psalms 19:1, prove to me otherwise. Tell me what you know about the origin of the universe. The problem with the "rabbish" you are talking about is based on your concern for the anthropomorphic gods of religions. You will get nowhere that way.