Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

But one doesn't usually believe something unless we know it is true....there is somewhat of a mystery in logic when the mind contemplates the union of non-duality and duality...and non-duality (singularity) is where the duality (objective science) can not enter...we can know this..or at least the mystically inclined can...

False. If we know something to be true, belief is unneeded and irrelevant. Belief is only required where knowledge is incomplete.

In this thread, I am unconcerned with the "mystically inclined."

 

[prometheus11]

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...aneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.44swh0ap1

Krauss isn't talking about a universe from nothing. Krauss's "nothing" assumes quantum mechanics at play in a "field" with no OTHER matter or energy. It's a shame Kraus uses the term "nothing" to describe this state.

 

[ArtieE]

Krauss isn't talking about a universe from nothing. Krauss's "nothing" assumes quantum mechanics at play in a "field" with no OTHER matter or energy. It's a shame Kraus uses the term "nothing" to describe this state.

There's no mention of Krauss in this article. It mentions "Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China."

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
Cosmologists assume that natural quantum fluctuations allowed the Big Bang to happen spontaneously. Now they have a mathematical proof
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxi...aneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3#.44swh0ap1

Even if this has any real science behind it...fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum is obviously not nothing....even if I do not have a clue what fluctuations in the metastable false vacuum means...it is not nothing else it would be called nothing....fail....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

False. If we know something to be true, belief is unneeded and irrelevant. Belief is only required where knowledge is incomplete.

In this thread, I am unconcerned with the "mystically inclined."

Cute...I understand what you are saying and didn't mean to talk down to you....but many do believe in big bang theory because of authority, the need to pass science exams, means of making a living, etc.. I know you do not want to talk non-duality v duality wrt objects of the mind...but imho, that is the reason you cannot see the wizard behind the curtain of big bang singularity dogma.. Nevertheless I respect your position for now and will try my best not raise it unless it is absolutely vital...

 

[prometheus11]

Have you considered that you might be deluded concerning your theory of mind?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you considered that you might be deluded concerning your theory of mind?

My mind does not (and can't) do theory wrt non-duality....only wrt science and other dualistic concepts in so far as it is appropriate....and relevant applications thereof..... From the non-dualist vantage point of apprehension of reality....all dualist interpretation of reality is relatively deluded....what is generally know as maya......but the principle of reciprocity is always there in liife...wise men understand that they can always learn from fools, but fools can never learn from wise men...

 

[Unification]

I am not aware of any misconceptions I have.

You lied about what I had said and intended. That's fact, not perception.

I have done nothing to you for which you should "forgive me." Stop pretending as if I have wronged you because I am calling you out on lying about me. That's immature and unfair and dishonest.

I have never judged anyone for beliefs concerning immeasurable things. I merely point out the difference.

Bud, there are too many of your posts that point out along the lines of how "stupid, silly, irrational it is to believe in something that cannot be measured or tested." That is no lie.

You have not wronged me.

 

[Unification]

No idea.

Do you now agree that any complaints about dark energy must also be leveled against gravity.

You can hypothesize of what it "could be." There is nothing wrong with that.

I don't agree because I've never had any complaints against either of them.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...wise men understand that they can always learn from fools, but fools can never learn from wise men...

So which do you think you are?

 

[prometheus11]

My mind does not (and can't) do theory wrt non-duality....only wrt science and other dualistic concepts in so far as it is appropriate....and relevant applications thereof..... From the non-dualist vantage point of apprehension of reality....all dualist interpretation of reality is relatively deluded....what is generally know as maya......but the principle of reciprocity is always there in liife...wise men understand that they can always learn from fools, but fools can never learn from wise men...

Arrogant claims made in pride to self-pleasure is not wisdom or indicative of higher truth.


Of course fools can sometimes learn from wise men. That's the entire foundation of education.

But you didn't answer my question.

So, have you considered that you might be deluded?

 

[prometheus11]

Bud, there are too many of your posts that point out along the lines of how "stupid, silly, irrational it is to believe in something that cannot be measured or tested." That is no lie.

You have not wronged me.

Of course I haven't wronged you. That's what I said.

You wronged me.

I discuss how some beliefs are irrational. I am not "judging" others. You simply want to throw stones at your own strawman of me.

 

[prometheus11]

You can hypothesize of what it "could be." There is nothing wrong with that.

I don't agree because I've never had any complaints against either of them.

Any statements about "not directly detected" and the like must be said about both gravity and dark energy.

 

[Shad]

I can use your same exact logic...

Scientists use absolutes all of the time during their hypotheses axioms. Absolutes in "actuality" are different than "assumed" absolutes.

Nope they do not use it as an absolute at all as it would not be falsifiable. An axiom is not a factual absolute. An axiom which is accepted for research is to grant an idea status it does not merit otherwise.

It is believed and thought to be a force until falsified. Who holds this monopoly? It is divided amongst physicists who believe and think of gravity as not a force.

Justified belief based on evidence is what science is about. This is different from faith beliefs. The current divide is if gravtons provide mass thus is the cause of warped space-time. This could change gravity radically by linking it with an object itself rather than a force upon objects. This is what general relativity lacked when it comes to warping of space-time, a object to identify.

 

[Shad]

Well, I never asked the goal posts to be widened by bringing "axioms" into the matter.

"Hypotheses are not assumed actual fact or truth."

More my fault than you own. Matter was mentioned along with energy. However you went along with my discussion about matter so accepted that I was talking about matter not energy.

CERN and CRESST detectors are for dark MATTER, not dark energy.

See above. You already accepted I was talking about dark matter.

It just goes to show that you've been talking about dark MATTER this entire time rather than dark ENERGY.

Which you accepted for days until now.

I am saying that dark ENERGY cannot be tested, while you're trying to call out ignorance by showing tests being performed with dark MATTER. That doesn't work.

No both matter and energy were mentioned. I just picked one to discuss which you accepted by replying to me until now. Granted my comments only apply to matter. Dark energy is similar to dark matter since both are attempted explanation of observations which current data can not account for from know phenomena. Both are treated as working hypothesis for research purposes. You point has no merit since I was never addressing dark energy once.

 

[Shad]

No, it hasn't.

Applying what Shad said above... "dark energy" is the cause for the expansion of the universe. ... which is your "belief." It is not the end all.

Never said that.

There are so many differing axioms and hypotheses as to what is the "cause" and some believe the universe isn't even expanding at accelerating speeds.

Those that do not believe the universe is accelerating disagree with known physics.

 

[Thief]

In was in layman sterns, yes, but it was science that discussed new ways of measuring dark energy. It was written by scientists who have dedicated their lives to working on dark energy.

You are wrong about dark energy according to science, and you refuse to accept scientific facts. It's not a problem, but you have rejected the science I have provided to you. Your choice.

he didn't get it wrong....and I saw the documentary.....

science believes in dark energy and matter.
the effect is sufficient to convince them....

can't show it directly.

 

[Unification]

Never said that.



Those that do not believe the universe is accelerating disagree with known physics.

Correct, never said that you did. I applied that into what "I" said.

Correction, those that do not believe the universe is accelerating don't assume with the commonly perceived thoughts, ideas, beliefs, appearance that it is. What you claim as the end all and known could very easily be an illusion.

 

[Unification]

More my fault than you own. Matter was mentioned along with energy. However you went along with my discussion about matter so accepted that I was talking about matter not energy.



See above. You already accepted I was talking about dark matter.



Which you accepted for days until now.



No both matter and energy were mentioned. I just picked one to discuss which you accepted by replying to me until now. Granted my comments only apply to matter. Dark energy is similar to dark matter since both are attempted explanation of observations which current data can not account for from know phenomena. Both are treated as working hypothesis for research purposes. You point has no merit since I was never addressing dark energy once.

That would make your points having no merit since you've never addressed dark energy once and it was all that I was referring to.

I have not played along with it. Correct, "you" picked the wrong one.

We would agree on dark matter. Although they are attempting to "detect it" ... not measure it.

 

[Unification]

Nope they do not use it as an absolute at all as it would not be falsifiable. An axiom is not a factual absolute. An axiom which is accepted for research is to grant an idea status it does not merit otherwise.



Justified belief based on evidence is what science is about. This is different from faith beliefs. The current divide is if gravtons provide mass thus is the cause of warped space-time. This could change gravity radically by linking it with an object itself rather than a force upon objects. This is what general relativity lacked when it comes to warping of space-time, a object to identify.

They pretend they do not, which they do.

Bud, you're just trying to fill in gaps by creating another imaginary friend... gravitons are "hypothetical" particles. You believe in their existence. . which is fine.

Saying gravity is a force is not accurate as you've shown that it is subject to change. Already has based on belief with classical Newtonian to relativity. You believe that gravity is a force. I don't see the need to keep dancing around this.