Is there a God?

[Warren Clark]

Nothing physical can come from nothing. People can not even define what the spirit is, how can they claim spirit cannot come from nothing? There might not be a need for a designer. But without a designer there could be no life imo.

So you believe our gift of life is what we call a "spirit"?
And you are saying it had to come from something?

Well, I can break this down (like i would a magic trick) into simple science.

We are alive because of electrodes pulsing in our nerves.
Energy always was and always will be. How it manifests is different each and every second. Right now, energy is manifesting into your keyboard and computer screen and everything else that you see. In an undefined amount of time, the energy will disperse to manifest into something different.

 

[Warren Clark]

Well, let me throw this out there.

I came upon my belief (not faith) in God (or actually Brahman in Hinduism) starting from the paranormal. In my earlier years it seemed the materialistic explanations (admitting we just didn't know all the details yet) was the sensible rational view. However, I had paranormal experiences that in no way could be explained in the materialist's world-view. I began to study so-called paranormal phenomena in-depth and the materialists response to these phenomena. I objectively came to the certainty that sometimes **** happens that can not be explained in the materialist world-view. In fact for any of these happenings to have occured, the materialist world-view must be DRAMATICALLY incomplete.

Through my study of Theosophy and eastern (Indian) thought I learned there are models of our existance that included non-physical planes/dimensions/realms. And that so-called western paranarmal phenomena is actually normal and can be explained through these more advanced world-views.

After much study I concluded to my satisfaction that these world-views were the highest understandings man has reached. And the ultimate conclusion was that there is one basis (Brahman) for all reality. A non-duality without the god/not god duality of western thinking.

So the original OP question...Is there a God?....does not really apply to non-dual thinking. But not to be too obtruse, put me down with a 'Yes' answer.

The "materialist-world" you speak of does have similar theories to that of the multidimensional your Indian friends believe in.
Atoms in the known world are constantly moving. They are very unstable. And we often get what we call a fleeting atom. Now these atoms are believed to go from one dimension to another while disappearing and reappearing in thin air.
It is believed that if singular atoms can do this energy can manifest itself between dimensions causing paranormal phenomena.
Of course its only a theory.
Like you said, we are not even close to having all the answers.
The human mind is very limiting.
I find the paranormal fascinating.
I still refuse to conclude there to be a God even as I continue seeking answers. =P

But I can completely see why you do believe...

 

[1robin]

Energy always was and always will be. How it manifests is different each and every second. Right now, energy is manifesting into your keyboard and computer screen and everything else that you see. In an undefined amount of time, the energy will disperse to manifest into something different.

If energy has always been, then time must have always been. Both of which almost all modern scientists reject. How did we cross an infinite number of seconds to arrive at this one? How did an infinite numbers of fluctuations of that energy already pass to arrive at this one? If energy always existed why hasn't it inevitably dispersed evenly over the entire universe by now? The same goes for matter as well. Please don't give me the oscillating universe or the multiverse faith based guesses. There is not one scrap of evidence for them and worse their can never be any. The universe appears to have begun a finite time in the past, started in a wound up state, be specifically tuned for life, and operate by rational law. None of that makes sense without an intelligent creator. Our brains are the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe and instinctively value meaning, purpose, rationality, destiny, origin, the transcendent, and morality. None of that makes sense without a rational creator either.

 

[Warren Clark]

If energy has always been, then time must have always been. Both of which almost all modern scientists reject. How did we cross an infinite number of seconds to arrive at this one? How did an infinite numbers of fluctuations of that energy already pass to arrive at this one? If energy always existed why hasn't it inevitably dispersed evenly over the entire universe by now? The same goes for matter as well. Please don't give me the oscillating universe or the multiverse faith based guesses. There is not one scrap of evidence for them and worse their can never be any. The universe appears to have begun a finite time in the past, started in a wound up state, be specifically tuned for life, and operate by rational law. None of that makes sense without an intelligent creator. Our brains are the most complex arrangement of matter in the known universe and instinctively value meaning, purpose, rationality, destiny, origin, the transcendent, and morality. None of that makes sense without a rational creator either.

Time is infinite and relatively a figment of our perception. We can only tell time by the movement of our earth in comparison to the stars and sun.

Energy is constantly moving.
There is the theory that the universe is constantly expanding and collapsing on itself and right now we are in the middle of its expanding cycle. Of course that is just one theory.
Another theory is that our universe is just another dimension of another universe and they infinitely go into loops.

I like to quote Doctor Who and his explanation of time.

[youtube]vY_Ry8J_jdw[/youtube]

If you disagree that time is infinite and claim that the universe and time is finite, then where did God come from?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Nothing, because there was no start. There is no point in time in which energy did not exist. (Because the Big Bang was the earliest possible moment.)

There is no point in time in which God did not exist either. He was always there and He will always be there.

 

[Warren Clark]

Exactly. It could only change form. That's it. So what made it start spinning, to the point that it caused a spark that then ended up as the universe?

You believe that the earth had to be created somehow. You agree that the solar system had to be created somehow. That somehow for you guys, is the Big Bang. Let's say I agree with you. I am not satisfied, and I want to know what created the big bang! If it's energy, I want to know what created that energy. Until we get to a point where the creator could not be created.

The only solution for that, in my books, is God.

If you know science, you know that energy is constant. It never stops moving, it never dies.
If it never dies, its save to assume it never was birthed.
Energy is in a constant state of being.

If there is a God, where did God come from?
If God always was, then why can't energy be just as infinite?

 

[Warren Clark]

You are implying that the universe must be infinately old. This is an impossability. Time can not stretch back into infinity because and infinate string of seconds could never be crossed in order to reach now. Nor can energy be infinate in duration because an infinate string of energy fluctuations (or any other change in energy states that has duration) can be traversed in order to arive at this current one. What you are reffering to is that we do not know of a method within natural law that energy may be created or destroyed by. That is far from knowing it can't be. The infinate universe idea has been cast away by even most major modern secular scientists. In professional debates they do not even bother with it. Instead they pull out their oscilating universe or bubble universe ideas to get out of a reality that implies God. Neither of which have a scrap of evidence or can ever have any.

You must not understand the science of time.
Time is relative to our perception.
A light year is a measurement of distance and time it takes to get to that point. We could never survive a light year at this point in science, until we can find a device that will allow us to travel light years.

Now just because we have an infinite line doesn't mean we can't view a segment of that line. Remember Algebra and Geometry where we learned the difference between a ray and a segment, etc.

Well that line is time... the segment could represent any period of that time.
The plane represents let's say the multi-verse theory or string theory.


We can say the line segment represents the big bang all the way to the collapse of the universe. (another current scientific theory)
Or the segment can represent your lifetime, or my lifetime, or the lifetime of the planet earth.
The point is that regardless of what segment of time we are looking at there was always time before it and time to come after it. Time is beyond our known universe.

What do you think causes us to live or die. Why do perfectly healthy human beings die, while others who have been sick for years are still alive? Scientifically, what is the difference between the corpse of a healthy man who died 10 seconds ago, and that of a sick man who is still alive? How does science define life? Why aren't we able to just give life back to a man?

Surely life has to be a spiritual aspect of our body, given and taken away, by God Himself...

Why does it have to be God? Why isn't acceptable to say it can't be done by any current scientific method.
Its like putting toothpaste back in the tube. It can't be done.
Right now there is no way to restore our energy. Our bodies are just vessels that age and deteriorate. They aren't made to be invincible, its part of evolution and the transfer of energy. In order to grow we must die to transfer our energy to our successors.

There is no point in time in which God did not exist either. He was always there and He will always be there.

Same can be said for energy.

 

[1robin]

Time is infinite and relatively a figment of our perception. We can only tell time by the movement of our earth in comparison to the stars and sun.

Actually what you are describing is duration. That is a very near description of time and is practically identical to it. If your energy existed infinitely then time necessarily did to. Both of which are impossible. That is why modern scholars as well as the first verse of the Bible point out that time and matter were created at the same time as well as space its self. If you have matter and no time how is duration measured? If you have time and no matter what is being measured? If you have matter and no space where will you put it? If you have space and no matter what is it that defines it? It is logically valid that time, matter, and space began to exist at the same instant.

Energy is constantly moving.
There is the theory that the universe is constantly expanding and collapsing on itself and right now we are in the middle of its expanding cycle. Of course that is just one theory.
Another theory is that our universe is just another dimension of another universe and they infinitely go into loops.

I tried very hard not to have to deal with the evidence less multiverse and oscillation module but I say it was in vain. I guess that is all that you have if you reject God. There is not a single scrap of data or mathematical formula based on natural law that suggests either of those options have merit. Your signature line says there is no God. However there are massive amounts of evidence that God exists yet you reject that conclusion. On the other hand there is no evidence that your two theories above have any merit at all yet you leave the option open. I believe your position lies more on preference than evidence. I also believe that the God implications of fine tuning, finite time, and something that began to exist implies God and that scared the secular scientists so bad they literally made up fantasy’s about oscillations and multiverses to get out of the issue. There is not a single reason to believe either are true or even possible, and there never will be.

I like to quote Doctor Who and his explanation of time.
[youtube]vY_Ry8J_jdw[/youtube]

I am sorry I cannot view videos on the DOD server I use at work. Who is Dr who? Sounds like a who song.

If you disagree that time is infinite and claim that the universe and time is finite, then where did God come from?

Is this tired old canard still in circulation? The law of cause and effect says that for everything that begins to exist it must have a creator. It also dictates that the capability of the cause must equal the effects observed. So the Universe came to exist at some time in the past and all of space and time at the same instant. Whatever created it must have been outside those parameters. If it was either in time, space, or made of matter it would not have existed until the universe did, and so we know the creator is not material, is independent of time, and matter. Well how about that, it perfectly matches what people 4000 years ago said about God. By the way far before they could have cheated and known what to falsely say God was. They knew nothing of the universe or causality. We also know that an infinite regression of causality has the same problems as time does and is impossible. So we know there was an uncaused first cause of the universe that is timeless, non-material, and is independent of space. Bingo. The same is true regardless what you think that first cause is. It just so happens that God is the only known candidate that meets this criteria known.

 

[PolyHedral]

I have a degree in math

You should've said! Now I can actually explain things.

I have not mentioned gravity. The issue of infinite verses finite past can be actually proven however as you admit:

The reason we don't know what happens at the Big Bang is because gravity doesn't quantize correctly. (Renormalization fails, which means quantized gravity produces infinite answers.) Therefore, if you know that there is a beginning of time, you must have a much thorough understanding of gravity than the rest of us.

And the argument for a infinite past besides violating philosophic laws

Philosophy doesn't have laws.

it is by far the most reliable bet to choose a finite past as the most reasonable.

A finite past means that your physical theory has a discontinuity in it. In contrast, an infinite past means the physics works everywhere and everywhen; it is merely slightly more counter-intuitive for it. Since our physics is incredibly counter-intuitive at it stands, this doesn't make much difference.

Always infinitely more than where ever you stop.

So I don't stop. Since I have a time step for every item I want to count, once I used all of my time steps, I will have counted all of them. (Check the literature on this one - the integers are normally defined as the countably infinite set.)

I notice all your allegories are non mathematical. If you use mathematical proofs like infinity minus infinity or asymptotic equations it is far more relevant and apparent that crossing anything infinite is logically ludicrous.

Contrariwise, logically, it's perfectly fine. It is merely intuitively not. You can do all sorts of things with infinite, infinitesimal and even transfinite quantities and the logic remains perfectly consistent and workable.

If you can tell me at what point you started walking I will answer your question. You are imposing finite assumptions on an infinite system.

You can, if you like, assume I start walking from the origin, at time 0.

What about the portion of natural law we have yet to discover, what about the rest of reality that lies outside empirical proofs, what about supernatural issues?

What about them? As far as physics is concerned, there are none.

Anyway time changes based on physics so it might also change the other way around. Time changes based on gravity and speed. It is relative but absolute. I do not see how what we have learned about our relatively small blink of time we have studied such things can then be reliably applied to the other 99.9999999999999999% percent of time and space.

Because if it were different, we'd notice. We'd see the boundaries where the laws changed over, for one thing.

It has faith in the uniform rational intelligibility of the universe.

This isn't really a statement that one can have faith in, because it's been so vastly evidenced. That is, all reasoning ever relies on this being true. This also includes all theology.

Mathematics does not force anything to submit. It is a passive abstract concept. It is descriptive not proscriptive. and no well that it does not make anything do anything, it only describes what it did.

In fully abstract terms, you're right - mathematics does not force anything to submit. That is because not submitting is literally inconceivable - there is no alternative. You'll never find a largest integer, rational square root of 2, or solution to the Halting problem, and neither would someone who is literally omniscient, because these things do not, never can, and never will exist. Math says so.

There is a vast amount of truth that mathematics has no access to or application on.

Such as?

I did not understand this.

It was badly phrased. The universe is guaranteed to follow mathematical results, but mathematics is not restricted to the universe, e.g. mathematics can describe spaces that have different dimensions to the universe as well as it describes actual spacetime.

The mathematic principles in Quantum systems and in Newtonian systems are completely different. That is why there is a great push on for a super unified theory that would apply to both.

The reason we need a unified theory between Quantum and Relativity is because gravity doesn't work inside quantum very well. This will almost certainly be extending quantum with gravity, not extending Relativity with the electronuclear force.

I have as of yet to hear of anything that has been proven to go faster than light. I know that Einstein showed that mathematics becomes undefined at light speed and suggests it is a unattainable speed. Until they can prove it I will doubt it.

Mr. Einstein didn't like Quantum Mechanics - this was perhaps the most embarrassing mistake of his career.

Also, have a paper. (PDF)

Energy dissipates and disperses over time. There is no exception to this except for small local anomalies...

You're talking about time-scales that make the universe's current age look like the tick of an atomic clock. What makes you think that small anomalies can't get bigger?

No it isn't. It is far younger than Newtonian physics.

I didn't say anything about how old it was. I said it was accurate, and well-tested. And it is - it predicted antimatter, and the Higgs, and all of electronics, and neutron stars, and metamaterials, and...

I have seen shows and read papers where the scientists admit they do not know much about it. It is much easier to see how a basketball behaves rather than a quark.

But we understand the quark a lot more. We can precisely predict where its wavefunction will go, for instance.

I have even seen the same scientists claim the universe is a 2 dimensional hologram in one interview and said to have 11 dimensions in another on string theory. They don't know a fraction of what they claim to.

Would you accept that it's possible these might be true simultaneously?

Now I get it. You defend an infinite universe against all known facts because you think it allows the impossible to become possible. Please tell me what complex system produced the first complex system that could convert energy into order.

See my explanation of time.

Thermodynamics describes how the universe operates it does not force it to operate that way. If you remove thermodynamics (a strange task) the universe would still operate the same without out description of it.

Thermodynamics is a consequence of statistics, as I said. It is impossible to remove it, because that would constitute making the universe not obey statistics, which is impossible.

Gravity was still gravity long before Newton invented to describe it.

Well, yes. That doesn't mean that mathematics is not fundamental to how gravity works. The shell theorem was always there, even before Newton.

 I think I understand your position now. You think infinite time gets rid of all the God implications of thermodynamics, fine tuning, time, causality, and life.

Allow me to explain to you how time works in quantum mechanics. You may want to brush up on your math knowledge.

First, construct a state space with approximately 6x10^80 dimensions - each of these dimensions represents one property (e.g. space, momentum, spin) of one particle. Thus, each point in this space represents one possible configuration of the universe. Let the set of all these points be M.

Now define a function, P, from M x M -> C, the complex numbers. For this function, P(f,g) =/= P(g,f) in general, and in almost all cases, |P(x,y)| will be greater than zero. Specifically, |P(f,g)| is the probability that the universe will transition from state f to state g. (And thus the function is scaled so that, for fixed f, the absolute value of the sum of P(f,g) for all other points g is exactly 1.)

In this context, a history is a series of points from M such that for n0, n1, ..., nk, |P(n, n[i+1])| is greater than zero. Clearly, there are many, many possible histories, lots of which do not have defined beginnings or endings. (Because there is no requirement for that series of values to only contain unique entries.)

Where thermodynamics comes in is the fact that, for a given state, T, the absolute value of the sum of P(g,T) across all g is larger the more entropic/less orderly T is. That is, as time goes on, it is more likely the universe ends up in a higher-entropy state than a lower-entropy one. This is the arrow of time.

But look at the statement earlier: in almost all cases, |P(x,y)| will be non-zero! This means the universe always has a very small chance of transitioning randomly into a lower-entropy state, and therefore appearing to reverse in time. Nothing in quantum mechanics prevents this. It is purely a matter of statistics that time works as it does - there is no dictate from on-high that history work as it does.

 

[1robin]

You must not understand the science of time.
Time is relative to our perception.
A light year is a measurement of distance and time it takes to get to that point. We could never survive a light year at this point in science, until we can find a device that will allow us to travel light years.
Now just because we have an infinite line doesn't mean we can't view a segment of that line. Remember Algebra and Geometry where we learned the difference between a ray and a segment, etc.

Well that line is time... the segment could represent any period of that time.
The plane represents let's say the multi-verse theory or string theory.

Where in the world did you get this from? If you set a point anywhere on the infinite line of time then looking in the lesser (usually left) direction it would be infinitely long and could not be traversed. Your segment idea has flaws as well but as we are talking about an infinite concept of which there are not any that can be measured of course you are speculating. There is no amount of geometrical figures that you can post that will make it possible to traverse an infinite distance or number of things. You might as well be arguing for perpetual motion machines.

We can say the line segment represents the big bang all the way to the collapse of the universe. (another current scientific theory)
Or the segment can represent your lifetime, or my lifetime, or the lifetime of the planet earth.
The point is that regardless of what segment of time we are looking at there was always time before it and time to come after it. Time is beyond our known universe.

That is impossible as I have said. I have a math degree and can recognize a proof. This isn't it. This is the statement of a hypothetical followed by a unrelated and unjustified conclusion. That is why it is not usually even debated anymore by the scholars. It is fast becoming a universal conclusion that time began at some finite point.

Time is beyond our known universe.

How do you know this? You can't get to where you state this is, yet you claim it to be so. How in the world can you dismiss all the evidence for God and then turn around and adopt these fantasies? It is inconsistent and that statement is logically incoherent.

Why does it have to be God? Why isn't acceptable to say it can't be done by any current scientific method.

First I didn't say it was God. I said God is the only candidate at this time known. Nothing else is a possible cause that we know of. Second nothing in existing science provides for a cause outside the universe. Science is based on natural law (or it is supposed to be, as can be seen here all types of faith and wish fulfillment are called science these days) and natural law only applies to the universe and not before it.

Its like putting toothpaste back in the tube. It can't be done.

What? What can't be done is demonstrate that energy should not have dissipated across the universe by now if time was infinite. Every parameter that is actually known about the universe suggest it is finite. You can believe otherwise but that is faith and no longer science.

Right now there is no way to restore our energy. Our bodies are just vessels that age and deteriorate. They aren't made to be invincible, its part of evolution and the transfer of energy. In order to grow we must die to transfer our energy to our successors.

When you die you have no energy to transfer to anything. You just stop taking energy from the environment. Our death is made necessary by thermodynamics (and possibly sin) not evolution and our future resurrection is not accessible to science one way or another. That is why it falls under revelational truth not scientific truth. Regardless none of this makes time anything but finite.

Same can be said for energy.

That is impossible and saying it over and over doesn't make it possible. If it was then energy would have infinately long ago become evenly dispersed over the entire universe. Matter would have become so dispersed that no atom could be seen from another. There is not a single fact about the universe that suggests infinate existance and nothing that doesn't show a finite history.

 

[1robin]

You should've said! Now I can actually explain things.

Oh boy. I didn't say I liked math.

The reason we don't know what happens at the Big Bang is because gravity doesn't quantize correctly. (Renormalization fails, which means quantized gravity produces infinite answers.) Therefore, if you know that there is a beginning of time, you must have a much thorough understanding of gravity than the rest of us.

If you are relating time to gravity then you have a point but an insufficient one. No matter what effect gravity had on time or how much that varied, time would still have a positive duration and an infinite amount of duration is impossible to traverse. In fact Dr Schroeder in The Science of God suggested that the six 24 days in genesis were actually 14 billion years in cosmic time. He used an average gravitational effect in regards to time starting with the big bang. I am not saying he was right, I agree with you we have no idea what exactly happened even far more recently and usually avoid the speculations. That however has no effect of philosophic laws. The exact nature of what happened is a mystery and probably always will be.

Philosophy doesn't have laws.

There are lists of rules under heading that say Philosophical laws. It isn't worth the debate. A law is just a proposition that has no known violation. I do not care what label you assign it, it has no known or theoretical violations.

A finite past means that your physical theory has a discontinuity in it. In contrast, an infinite past means the physics works everywhere and every when; it is merely slightly more counter-intuitive for it. Since our physics is incredibly counter-intuitive at it stands, this doesn't make much difference.

There is nothing more illogical concerning a discontinuity that not having one. As you say what we observe is plenty counter intuitive that intuitiveness is no standard by which to determine reality. Science as you have pointed out uses faith to a large degree. We assume that what we know about .00000000000000001% of the universe and .000000000000000001% of time applies to the rest. That is faith but necessary I guess.

So I don't stop. Since I have a time step for every item I want to count, once I used all of my time steps, I will have counted all of them. (Check the literature on this one - the integers are normally defined as the countably infinite set.)

That is illogical. If something is countable it ceases to be infinite. In fact that is the definition of finite. If you could not start at this point (now) and reach a beginning that doesn't exist you could not do so in reverse either. It does not take fancy math to know that.

Contrariwise, logically, it's perfectly fine. It is merely intuitively not. You can do all sorts of things with infinite, infinitesimal and even transfinite quantities and the logic remains perfectly consistent and workable.

Actually most uses of infinity cause equations to blow up, become undefined, or give meaningless results. Unless you are dealing with unbounded finite systems which time isn't I must respectfully reject your logic.

You can, if you like, assume I start walking from the origin, at time 0

I am afraid that in your system there is no time where T=0. This is exactly why it can't be true. It appears you are applying things true of finite systems to infinite ones. There is no limit to an infinite system.

What about them? As far as physics is concerned, there are none.

Are you claiming we know everything there is to know. If that is the case we should close the universities. If not then my point is true. Are you saying that only empirical truths are true? Then prove that murder is wrong or your family loves you empirically. Are you saying that revelational truth is not truth? You have no access that would allow that knowledge. The point is there is infinitely more we do not know than we do. It is arrogant and prideful to think we know enough now to determine the reality of everything.

Because if it were different, we'd notice. We'd see the boundaries where the laws changed over, for one thing.

Do mathematical laws apply to morality? Does physics apply to ascetic value? Does chemistry determine philosophy? There are many exclusive magisteriums and most are not empirical. This isn't really a statement that one can have faith in, because it's been so vastly evidenced. That is, all reasoning ever relies on this being true. This also includes all theology.

In fully abstract terms, you're right - mathematics does not force anything to submit. That is because not submitting is literally inconceivable - there is no alternative. You'll never find a largest integer, rational square root of 2, or solution to the Halting problem, and neither would someone who is literally omniscient, because these things do not, never can, and never will exist. Math says so.

That might be true if God was subject to mathematics and not it's creator. Why is it you think that Collins, Newton, Faraday, Eddington, Wilder, Galileo, and Pascal who knew all of what you have said still believed.

Such as?

Oh come on! Morals, ascetics, philosophy, meaning, purpose, and value.

It was badly phrased. The universe is guaranteed to follow mathematical results, but mathematics is not restricted to the universe, e.g. mathematics can describe spaces that have different dimensions to the universe as well as it describes actual space time.

I think I agree but do not see the relevance.

The reason we need a unified theory between Quantum and Relativity is because gravity doesn't work inside quantum very well. This will almost certainly be extending quantum with gravity, not extending Relativity with the electronuclear force.

Well there is one of those boundaries you were looking for right there. Actually nothing that describes quantum behavior applies equally to macro behavior. Gravity is just one such force.

Mr. Einstein didn't like Quantum Mechanics - this was perhaps the most embarrassing mistake of his career.

Actually he said it was his refusal to believe that the universe was increasingly spreading out indicating a finite past.

Also,

have a paper. (PDF)

Thanks, but I post in between work in a DOD lab and have to have a very good reason to justify combing through long papers, when half of it would be over my head anyway.

You're talking about time-scales that make the universe's current age look like the tick of an atomic clock. What makes you think that small anomalies can't get bigger?

Energy dissipates over time. Your theory says we have had infinite time. Why hasn't it completely dissipated by now and what wound it up in the first place? Why matter isn’t evenly dissipated over the universe by now? I do not in any way buy an oscillating universe, as there is no evidence for it and all the actual evidence denies it.

I didn't say anything about how old it was. I said it was accurate, and well-tested. And it is - it predicted antimatter, and the Higgs, and all of electronics, and neutron stars, and metamaterials, and...

For right now let me be polite and say I do not take anything on faith concerning extremely modern scientific conclusions. I think they make wild predictions and conclusions because without them there is no grant money. I think academics are the most boastful and egotistical group of people in human history and I do not trust them. I have seen them time and again contradict each other and many times themselves. I do however have confidence in things that have been around a while and have been scrutinized exhaustively. I am sure much often new stuff is correct but I will avoid cutting edge science as unreliable.

But we understand the quark a lot more. We can precisely predict where its wave function will go, for instance. Would you accept that it's possible these might be true simultaneously?

We do not know exactly where anything in these quantum sizes will be. What we do is set up locations and probabilities of regions they must be inside of. Even electron locations are defined by orbitals and not x,y,z coordinates.

See my explanation of time.

Sorry, that was a cheap shot and I tried to take it out later and couldn't.

Thermodynamics is a consequence of statistics, as I said. It is impossible to remove it, because that would constitute making the universe not obey statistics, which is impossible.

Thermodynamics is an implication of statistics. The universe does not obey statistics; statistics describes how the universe operates. The fact that the chance that things break apart is vastly higher than the chance things get together and stay together in the right order over much higher than equilibrium complexity would seem to render abiogenesis absolute. Yet those same scientists dismiss inconvenient laws as fast as they create convenient theories. I do not trust them.

 

[1robin]

Well, yes. That doesn't mean that mathematics is not fundamental to how gravity works. The

shell theorem was always there, even before Newton.
Allow me to explain to you how time works in quantum mechanics. You may want to brush up on your math knowledge.
First, construct a state space with approximately 6x10^80 dimensions - each of these dimensions represents one property (e.g. space, momentum, spin) of one particle. Thus, each point in this space represents one possible configuration of the universe. Let the set of all these points be M.
Now define a function, P, from M x M -> C, the complex numbers. For this function, P(f,g) =/= P(g,f) in general, and in almost all cases, |P(x,y)| will be greater than zero. Specifically, |P(f,g)| is the probability that the universe will transition from state f to state g. (And thus the function is scaled so that, for fixed f, the absolute value of the sum of P(f,g) for all other points g is exactly 1.)
In this context, a history is a series of points from M such that for n0, n1, ..., nk, |P(n, n[i+1])| is greater than zero. Clearly, there are many, many possible histories, lots of which do not have defined beginnings or endings. (Because there is no requirement for that series of values to only contain unique entries.)
Where thermodynamics comes in is the fact that, for a given state, T, the absolute value of the sum of P(g,T) across all g is larger the more entropic/less orderly T is. That is, as time goes on, it is more likely the universe ends up in a higher-entropy state than a lower-entropy one. This is the arrow of time.
But look at the statement earlier: in almost all cases, |P(x,y)| will be non-zero! This means the universe always has a very small chance of transitioning randomly into a lower-entropy state, and therefore appearing to reverse in time. Nothing in quantum mechanics prevents this. It is purely a matter of statistics that time works as it does - there is no dictate from on-high that history work as it does.

I appreciate the info but as I have stated I have very limited time and these types of discussions require a lot of it I just can't justify combing through things like this. You appear to be a very knowledgeable person but as I have stated I do not trust modern academics. Science has advanced until it is so complex as well as diverse that no one can know enough to understand all of it or even a single branch. We wind up having to either swallow things on faith or spend vast amounts of time fact checking. I was greatly disillusioned in college when I would go to seminars given by the professors and they would confidently argue against each other and each had mile long proofs for opposite conclusions. I have heard so many of today’s celebrity academics like Degrass and others claim they know things that I know they have no way of knowing. I just the other day saw back to back shows where the scientists claimed in one that the material universe is a hologram and is actually two dimensional, then the next program said it actually has 11 dimensions. What made it worse it was the exact same scientists in both shows. Another series called search for truth has all the world’s top scientists making completely mutually exclusive claims to the same truths. So now a days I either refuse to listen or if something justifies it spend days and weeks verifying claims. I cannot do so at this time but I appreciate knowledge and thank you for the information.

 

[Warren Clark]

Where in the world did you get this from? If you set a point anywhere on the infinite line of time then looking in the lesser (usually left) direction it would be infinitely long and could not be traversed. Your segment idea has flaws as well but as we are talking about an infinite concept of which there are not any that can be measured of course you are speculating. There is no amount of geometrical figures that you can post that will make it possible to traverse an infinite distance or number of things. You might as well be arguing for perpetual motion machines.

You can pick any point you want. It would just take you to that point in time...
It doesn't matter how much time was before or came to pass.
If the energy we know cannot be created or destroyed, where did it come from?
It is these questions that people are scared of and claim it was God to comfort themselves.

That is impossible as I have said. I have a math degree and can recognize a proof. This isn't it. This is the statement of a hypothetical followed by a unrelated and unjustified conclusion. That is why it is not usually even debated anymore by the scholars. It is fast becoming a universal conclusion that time began at some finite point.

So if you have a math degree have you heard of the book called
Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences

by

John Allen Paulos



Hes one of my favorite Mathematicians, he's got a PHD as well... how bout you?


Here is just one article that leaves the debate still open.
On a finite universe with no beginning or end

Peter Lynds

Then you have Albert Einstein who first proposed the Universe was on a cycle...
along with others...

Cyclic Model (Wikipedia)


Then you have Stephen Hawking who believes pondering about time before the big bang is meaningless to us because it wouldn't have anything to do with us. So he sticks with the idea that time (at least our time) started with the big bang.

How do you know this? You can't get to where you state this is, yet you claim it to be so. How in the world can you dismiss all the evidence for God and then turn around and adopt these fantasies? It is inconsistent and that statement is logically incoherent.

Now you are emotionally wallowing with religious conviction...
Please stick with me. I know it gets pretty restless when you don't need science to say "I can see God in my everyday life". But for the mean time, lets talk science.
It was just the same statement I said before.
Its still just a theory... I am not saying its a fact, but a possibility.

First I didn't say it was God. I said God is the only candidate at this time known. Nothing else is a possible cause that we know of. Second nothing in existing science provides for a cause outside the universe. Science is based on natural law (or it is supposed to be, as can be seen here all types of faith and wish fulfillment are called science these days) and natural law only applies to the universe and not before it.

You actually did just say it was God, right there in the box above highlighted in red.
How can you preach science and math if you adopt something that is outside of experimental odds. The notion of God doesn't even fit in any mathematical equation because if he did, it would distort them so that they wouldn't make any logical sense.
Probability would get off messed up.
In stead of 1/6 a chance of rolling a six on a die, you could possibly end up having a 1/3 chance of rolling a 6 because God is on your side... =P
Without God there is no confusion and science won't be bothered getting distorted by his miracle...

(Sorry for being a sarcastic prick, but I've got to make this entertaining for myself. I get tired of people bringing up God when I am having a perfect discussion about science without his name getting in the way.)

What? What can't be done is demonstrate that energy should not have dissipated across the universe by now if time was infinite. Every parameter that is actually known about the universe suggest it is finite. You can believe otherwise but that is faith and no longer science.

Well that's the difference between a theist and an atheist.
I am not throwing out all other possibilities, I am just saying "look at this cool idea, it has a possibility of being true, maybe..."
Maybe Stephen Hawking is okay with saying the Big Bang started time, but he doesn't necessarily care about what was the initial cause of the big bang and what the few seconds before the big bang were like.
Stephen Hawking is an Atheist that doesn't question the creation of his own theories.
What was there to start the Big Bang?
At least I can come up with some thought towards it... and a cyclic theory and the thought that time is infinite is not unheard of or impossible.

But to be honest, I really think you completely ignored the really cool analogy of the toothpaste and just kind of distracted yourself from dealing with what actually being said... its okay though, people do that when they experience cognitive dissonance.

When you die you have no energy to transfer to anything. You just stop taking energy from the environment. Our death is made necessary by thermodynamics (and possibly sin) not evolution and our future resurrection is not accessible to science one way or another. That is why it falls under revelational truth not scientific truth. Regardless none of this makes time anything but finite.

For being someone religious you don't seem to understand the transfer of energy after death part. Let me explain.

The world is made up of energy. You and I are made of energy. When you burn anything, it is converted to energy, and then carbon the core element of life.
When we die, our body decomposes. Just because we are dead though doesn't mean we aren't still composed of energy. Carbon is energy just in a different form, so when we become dust or worm food or how ever you like to imagine it, we are in turn returning our energy to the earth.
It sounds like a romantic religious notion, but its true. The energy that is in every atom of our body will be converted to better use. Isn't that cool? I LOVE SCIENCE!

And yes our time is finite. we only live for so long, but the world keeps spinning. And even when the world stops spinning the universe will keep doing its thing.

That is impossible and saying it over and over doesn't make it possible. If it was then energy would have infinately long ago become evenly dispersed over the entire universe. Matter would have become so dispersed that no atom could be seen from another. There is not a single fact about the universe that suggests infinate existance and nothing that doesn't show a finite history.

Not if the Big Bang happened like they say it did. Its the perfect explanation.
There is a cause and effect to everything.
You are right there is no fact about the universe's existence. There are only our theories. Our theories are the best humanly possible way to explain the universe as we know it. Which isn't very well at all. Our minds are too small to comprehend most a lot of things.

 

[1robin]

You can pick any point you want. It would just take you to that point in time...
It doesn't matter how much time was before or came to pass.

No you can't. If we picked now and looked backwards there is no point that anything could have started at. No matter where you start there is an infinite line before that point. I can't justify saying the sun is hot over and over. If you can't accept that then there is no point in debating it further. The majority of times that infinity appears in math it results in undefined functions and limits to value at less than infinite. It is a kind of mathematical out of bounds.

If the energy we know cannot be created or destroyed, where did it come from?
It is these questions that people are scared of and claim it was God to comfort themselves.

Good night nurse. The concept of God was adopted long before anyone would have known what to be scared of. I do not find anything frightening about it God or no God. I didn't say it couldn't be destroyed or created. I simply said that there is nothing known that can do so. That leaves more out of consideration than in it. A thousand years ago there was nothing known that could destroy Hiroshima in a minute either. Whatever created energy exists outside the universe where natural law has no application. However there is nothing outside natural law in that if it has always existed it would be even dispersed by now. Your laws have no application where this would occur. The issue concerning dissipation therefore is more reliable than the one concerning creation.

So if you have a math degree have you heard of the book called
Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences

Why would squeaking through mathematics mean I would know every author of every book on the subject? I actually dislike the subject and work in defense avionics electronic systems.

he's got a PHD as well... how bout you?

Not even close, however I work directly for one and my younger brother is a national merit scholarship winner and graduated with a 3.95 in computer engineering in 3 years, and is working on a masters. My father is an apollo 5 and space shuttle mechanical engineer. One cousin has a masters and the other is working on a doctorate in engineering, but enough with the horn tooting.

Then you have Albert Einstein who first proposed the Universe was on a cycle...
along with others...

Actually he said his greatest mistake was disbelieving the universe was expanding.

Cyclic Model

I am familiar with the theory as well as the fact that there is absolutely no good evidence for it.

Then you have Stephen Hawking who believes pondering about time before the big bang is meaningless

Ok

Now you are emotionally wallowing with religious conviction...

I was at one time completely opposed to God. If he existed I hated him and was so arrogant about my academic knowledge that I used the same methods you are to debate against him. I now consider that the most shameful period of my life.

But for the meantime, lets talk science.
It was just the same statement I said before.
Its still just a theory... I am not saying its a fact, but a possibility.

OK, I actually love science. I just hate theories based more on faith than fact called science instead of guesses.

You actually did just say it was God, right there in the box above highlighted in red.
How can you preach science and math if you adopt something that is outside of experimental odds.

That is one strange criterion. Truth is divided into several categories. They do have overlapping magisterium at times but are fairly distinct. One is empirical and is used to detect what the senses can identify. Another is revelation and is a conclusion based on evidence. Some empirical but most historical, theological, explanatory power and scope, and philosophical, etc.... An empirical test is not the standard by which revelation truth is detected. It is only a small slice of what is used to identify reality. I do not get your assertion.

Probability would get off messed up.
In stead of 1/6 a chance of rolling a six on a die, you could possibly end up having a 1/3 chance of rolling a 6 because God is on your side... =P
(Sorry for being a sarcastic prick, but I've got to make this entertaining for myself. I get tired of people bringing up God when I am having a perfect discussion about science without his name getting in the way.)

Actually you are not coherent enough for the sarcasm to be detected. I do not get anything you just said. I think for some reason you are applying natural law to a supernatural issue. That is like using a calculator to verify how beautiful the grand canyon is, or a slide ruler to see if your kids love you.

Well that's the difference between a theist and an atheist.

What? A theist positively believes a deity exists and is personal. An atheist positively believes no God exists. (Which by the way is absolutely impossible to know)

I am not throwing out all other possibilities, I am just saying "look at this cool idea, it has a possibility of being true, maybe..."

I think you are, even though you might not realize it. If not that is more agnostic than atheistic.

Maybe Stephen Hawking is okay with saying the Big Bang started time, but he doesn't necessarily care

The cyclic theory has far less merit and evidence than God has. Yet you consider the one and reject the other. That is what I meant by saying you are dismissing things even if you do not realize it.

But to be honest, I really think you completely ignored the really cool analogy of the toothpaste and just kind of distracted yourself from dealing with what actually being said... its okay though, people do that when they experience cognitive dissonance.

I actually considered whether there might be some meaning behind that analogy but ultimately determined that it would not make any difference if you made an incorrect point cleverly or not. As far as cognitive dissonance goes I am not the one that is disbelieving in God despite tons of evidence that suggests he exists and considering the cyclic theory despite no evidence for it and all that there is against it. Now that is truly dissonant.

 

[Warren Clark]

No you can't. If we picked now and looked backwards there is no point that anything could have started at. No matter where you start there is an infinite line before that point. I can't justify saying the sun is hot over and over. If you can't accept that then there is no point in debating it further. The majority of times that infinity appears in math it results in undefined functions and limits to value at less than infinite. It is a kind of mathematical out of bounds.

Well its not a complicated equation. Its quite simple visually as I had just explained.

<---------(Big Bang)------(Solar System)-------(Abiogenesis)-----(Evolution)------(People)----------(End of Homo Sapiens)---------(End of the World)--------(End of the Universe)------>

I just color coded it (showing our level of knowledge on the subject)for you so maybe it will help.

Imagine you are on this rainbow strip we call time. Visually there is no end to either side. We can see the big bang, but anything beyond that is a black abyss... we have no knowledge of what it was like, and why should we? It doesn't effect us...
Then at the other end of the road you see the demise of our kind.
Beyond that you see the demise of the universe, and then whatever else is to come... (no one knows of course)
The point is that these events are just points by which we can tell time.
There is no mathematical or scientific equation that says that time did NOT extend beyond the big bang...

And while you say your magical "God" did it, I say my magical beans did it...
You see how absurd that sounds?
What makes it so that your God can be infinite beyond time but time itself cannot be infinite? Where does the science fit if you already have God? Or is it just in your head that your God needs to be bigger and better than time?
What ever happened to that math symbol? You know the one that looks like an 8 on its side. Its the symbol for infinite.

Good night nurse. The concept of God was adopted long before anyone would have known what to be scared of. I do not find anything frightening about it God or no God. I didn't say it couldn't be destroyed or created. I simply said that there is nothing known that can do so. That leaves more out of consideration than in it. A thousand years ago there was nothing known that could destroy Hiroshima in a minute either. Whatever created energy exists outside the universe where natural law has no application. However there is nothing outside natural law in that if it has always existed it would be even dispersed by now. Your laws have no application where this would occur. The issue concerning dissipation therefore is more reliable than the one concerning creation.

Well the concept of God was created a few thousand years ago with the first civilizations.
Its what people do to find comfort in the meaning of life...

Why does it have to be something supernatural? That is exactly what you are assuming to!
You are assuming something has to happen beyond natural law. What if it didn't?
It is very likely that everything happened under proper laws of physics, even some that we may not know about yet. That doesn't mean it was God or anything supernatural.
Just means we lack the fundamental knowledge to come up with a clear answer.
But the theory that energy always was is viable.
We know it cannot be created or destroyed.
We discovered that which is what caused the demise of Heroshima.

Why would squeaking through mathematics mean I would know every author of every book on the subject? I actually dislike the subject and work in defense avionics electronic systems.

Then maybe we can agree this isn't your strong suite.
But the book is a New York Times Best Seller.
I am surprised as someone with a degree "in math" that you haven't even heard of it.
It might be helpful understanding what I am talking about with probability and our lack of understanding such large quantities including time.
A million years is unfathomable, let alone a light year. So how could we possibly assume what happened before the Big Bang (or assume nothing happened at all)... :sarcastic

Not even close, however I work directly for one and my younger brother is a national merit scholarship winner and graduated with a 3.95 in computer engineering in 3 years, and is working on a masters. My father is an apollo 5 and space shuttle mechanical engineer. One cousin has a masters and the other is working on a doctorate in engineering, but enough with the horn tooting.

Fun stuff. My family are more Bible book worms than science nuts... their lack of intelligence is what motivated me to better myself... I'm still going to college, I am not claiming to have a degree or anything, I just read up on people who have degrees and have a pretty darn good clue of what they are talking about.

Actually he said his greatest mistake was disbelieving the universe was expanding.

Yes, well I don't know if he said that. But yeah, scientists generally say that was his biggest mistake without doubt.
But his theory of it being cyclical still stood as scientists have remodeled the theory.

I am familiar with the theory as well as the fact that there is absolutely no good evidence for it.

Actually it has just as much merit as any other theory of the big bang and how it started and how the universe will "end".
Its just one of the theories, and each theory is just as relevant.

I was at one time completely opposed to God. If he existed I hated him and was so arrogant about my academic knowledge that I used the same methods you are to debate against him. I now consider that the most shameful period of my life.

Well I can see why it would be shameful. Arrogance and the fall that comes from being arrogant is very painful and can cause serious recalibrating of the way the person's mind works. <-- thats getting into psychology. has some to do with cognitive dissonance.

I can say you were wrong to oppose "God" so strongly.
I don't hate the idea of there being a god. I would love there to be a god.
Sure I hate disease and everything, but because I don't believe that there is a God, there is nothing but the issues at hand to blame.
If there is a God, I would expect a logical explanation. I am sure he has one if he exists. (Or it)

I want it to be noted that I am not debating "against him".
He could easily exist with time being infinite, (which there is nothing to suggest it isnt)

OK, I actually love science. I just hate theories based more on faith than fact called science instead of guesses.

Well all theories are based on hypothesis (plural) that we were not able to falsify.
Large amounts of facts and data is used to come up with theories.

I wish i still had the video from the science channel...
but for some reason when i tried looking up "time infinite" I got videos of people swapping spit.

That is one strange criterion. Truth is divided into several categories. They do have overlapping magisterium at times but are fairly distinct. One is empirical and is used to detect what the senses can identify. Another is revelation and is a conclusion based on evidence. Some empirical but most historical, theological, explanatory power and scope, and philosophical, etc.... An empirical test is not the standard by which revelation truth is detected. It is only a small slice of what is used to identify reality. I do not get your assertion.

Evidence does not include heresay.
Evidence must be physical and empirical.
It must be able to be repeated or viewed again.

There is a reason heresay is not allowed into court or science.
However there is a difference if something was published with scientific recognition.
And anyone who would care to study it could.

Actually you are not coherent enough for the sarcasm to be detected. I do not get anything you just said. I think for some reason you are applying natural law to a supernatural issue. That is like using a calculator to verify how beautiful the grand canyon is, or a slide ruler to see if your kids love you.

I was just saying that if you could by chance use God as empirical evidence, the evidence would be skewed by the powers of God...
for example, rolling a die would no longer have the same probability.
I honestly don't remember where I was going with that.
I probably just got bored... idk.

What? A theist positively believes a deity exists and is personal. An atheist positively believes no God exists. (Which by the way is absolutely impossible to know)

Neither one is possible to know for certain.
Can't prove something that can't be tested.
The assertion that there is a God carries the burden of proof...

I think you are, even though you might not realize it. If not that is more agnostic than atheistic.

[youtube]CQcJ_y33Lu0[/youtube]

 

[Warren Clark]

The cyclic theory has far less merit and evidence than God has. Yet you consider the one and reject the other. That is what I meant by saying you are dismissing things even if you do not realize it.

Not really. You can't just say "look how beautiful everything is, that is God".
The cyclic theory is based on scientific research and data that has been accumulating rapidly over the past century.
Where as any evidence of God at all (there really isn't any) is diminished.

I actually considered whether there might be some meaning behind that analogy but ultimately determined that it would not make any difference if you made an incorrect point cleverly or not. As far as cognitive dissonance goes I am not the one that is disbelieving in God despite tons of evidence that suggests he exists and considering the cyclic theory despite no evidence for it and all that there is against it. Now that is truly dissonant.

Where is the evidence? You keep saying there is evidence but there is nothing...
show it to me. Make it irrefutable.
Please read up on probability. A great start is the book I mentioned Innumeracy.
Also read up on cyclic theory. The evidence is that of the big bang... but i wont count out the Big Freeze theory or the Heating Theory.
All viable... I just happened to choose cyclic... seems reasonable in my mind.

The video below is a show that had a debate over the same issue of time being infinite. Pretty funny stuff....


[youtube]JZkly7PiWsQ[/youtube]

 

[1robin]

Well its not a complicated equation. Its quite simple visually as I had just explained.

<---------(Big Bang)------(Solar System)-------(Abiogenesis)-----(Evolution)------(People)----------(End of Homo Sapiens)---------(End of the World)--------(End of the Universe)------>

I just color coded it (showing our level of knowledge on the subject)for you so maybe it will help.

Imagine you are on this rainbow strip we call time. Visually there is no end to either side. We can see the big bang, but anything beyond that is a black abyss... we have no knowledge of what it was like, and why should we? It doesn't effect us...
Then at the other end of the road you see the demise of our kind.
Beyond that you see the demise of the universe, and then whatever else is to come... (no one knows of course)
The point is that these events are just points by which we can tell time.
There is no mathematical or scientific equation that says that time did NOT extend beyond the big bang...

I don't think a hastily cobbled together crude picture is going to make it possible to cross an infinite number of seconds. I do appreciate the effort though. By the way without a key to the color code I am missing out on most of what was neat about the picture.

And while you say your magical "God" did it, I say my magical beans did it...
You see how absurd that sounds?

Yes I see how absurd it is to say beans did it. I and many of the greatest minds in all of human history think God makes more sense and in fact the only sense possible of our past. It is far more absurd to suggest that beans and God are equivalent concepts and then there fore the comparison is silly and a waste of time. It is referred to as an appeale to the absurd and is a falacy. If you can't see the difference between the validity of the two concepts I won't bother pointing it out. There is about as much reason to beleive beans did it as that the universe is oscillating so it's no suprise you adopted it.

What makes it so that your God can be infinite beyond time but time itself cannot be infinite?

He does. I do not get your approach. We do not know why most of reality does what it does or what it even is in many cases yet it exists. We don't know how God can be and yet you demand that science prove it. Science is a limited and narrow detector of reality. Most of reality is not known to science but I do not think you deny that love, astetic value, morality, or what exists on the bottom of all the oceans just on Earth just because science can't detect it or hasn't yet.

Where does the science fit if you already have God?

He created it is where it fits. Let me ask you something. You know that we have mathematics that describe how gravity works can you tell me why it works? Since I know you can't it must not exist by your odd logic.

Or is it just in your head that your God needs to be bigger and better than time?

The philisophic truth about time exists whether God does or not.

What ever happened to that math symbol? You know the one that looks like an 8 on its side. Its the symbol for infinite.

What are you talking about? It's symbol is representative of an abstract concept. There is no actual infinite in nature.

Well the concept of God was created a few thousand years ago with the first civilizations. Its what people do to find comfort in the meaning of life...

You are full of every bad stereotypical example of a bad argument against God there is. The same book that has heaven also has Hell. It also has continuous self admitted failure and of the most serious kind. The testimony in the Bible is said by the greatest experts on evidence in human history (Simon Greenleaf, and Lord Lynhurst) who said that the Bible meets every single standard of modern law and the historical method. They said along with many other experts that the Bible has every halmark of unmytholigised fact and honest testimony. Until you gain or produce someone with higher credentials I am going with them. Here is a link to their statements among many other respected master scholars: Evidence That Demands a Verdict - Ch. 10 p. 2

Why does it have to be something supernatural? That is exactly what you are assuming to!

I have said several times so far that it doesn't have to be but God is the actually the only candidate known. How can science (mere natural law) exist before nature in order to create nature?

You are assuming something has to happen beyond natural law. What if it didn't?

What created nature must have existed outside of the nature he produced. It is simple cause and effect philosophy and has no exception real or theoretic.

It is very likely that everything happened under proper laws of physics, even some that we may not know about yet. That doesn't mean it was God or anything supernatural.

How can you physics exists before physicallity existed. Nothing produces nothing. We had nothing and yet now we have something. You say nothing exploded and created everything an infinate time ago by laws it created later and defy science and philosophy. I say we had God and nothing else then he created everything a finite time ago. That violates nothing except your delicate sensabilities.

Just means we lack the fundamental knowledge to come up with a clear answer.

However that will not stop your type of science is my religion personality from grasping anything no matter how fantastic or ever impossible and rejecting God no matter how likely or reasonable. It seems as they knew 5000 years ago that the decision to reject God is based in the heart and has very little to do with evidence.

We know it cannot be created or destroyed.

Please pay close attention to this. I have said it several times so far and it has apparently not regestered. We do not in any way know that energy can't be created or destroyed. The only thing we know is that we do not know of anythingthat can do it. Whatever viability your energy point has is not as strong as the equally scientifically true but much more applicable fact that if the universe was infinately old then the energy would have dissipated by now. One of those laws is not quite true. Mine is stronger. Yours must have an exception, that is why I point out there may be something that can create or destroy energy in the 99% of reality we don't know anything about.

We discovered that which is what caused the demise of Heroshima.

That was not the point. We may very well learn in the next ten years something that can create and destroy energy. Ignorance is not proof of anything but ignorance.

Then maybe we can agree this isn't your strong suite.
But the book is a New York Times Best Seller.
I am surprised as someone with a degree "in math" that you haven't even heard of it.
It might be helpful understanding what I am talking about with probability and our lack of understanding such large quantities including time.
A million years is unfathomable, let alone a light year. So how could we possibly assume what happened before the Big Bang (or assume nothing happened at all)...

I guess I can agree to that. I hate tedium which is why I always got concepts faster and proofs slower than anyone else. None of that is relevant to the fact that crossing an infinate series of seconds is not even a logical question. Infinity when introduced into rationality is always in conflict. It blows up most math applications and introduces logical impossabilities like what is infinity times 2 or divided by 7. It has no actuall reality, it is an abstract concept only.

Fun stuff. My family are more Bible book worms than science nuts... their lack of intelligence is what motivated me to better myself... I'm still going to college, I am not claiming to have a degree or anything, I just read up on people who have degrees and have a pretty darn good clue of what they are talking about.

I am a little of both. Currently I am reading a bio of Mother Theresa, The Science of God by Schroedder, a secular history of OT warfare, and a generic history of the NT. I keep one in each place I frequent. However I regard science as only one narrow band among many by which reality may be detected or examined. I lost my religious fervor for science when I spiritually met Jesus and it was a much better fit when transferred to him.

 

[George-ananda]

The "materialist-world" you speak of does have similar theories to that of the multidimensional your Indian friends believe in.
Atoms in the known world are constantly moving. They are very unstable. And we often get what we call a fleeting atom. Now these atoms are believed to go from one dimension to another while disappearing and reappearing in thin air.
It is believed that if singular atoms can do this energy can manifest itself between dimensions causing paranormal phenomena.
Of course its only a theory.
Like you said, we are not even close to having all the answers.
The human mind is very limiting.
I find the paranormal fascinating.
I still refuse to conclude there to be a God even as I continue seeking answers. =P

But I can completely see why you do believe...

I feel there is a problem, with your attempt to explain 'wierd' (paranormal) events in a naturalistic way. I don't know or deny what you have to say about fleeting atoms going from one dimension to another while disappearing and reappearing in thin air. Or even energy moving between dimension (these things are over my pay grade and I'll let others debate those things).

My problem is that the paranormal events have a human meaning. For example, my son-in-law used to work for a party store and among the employees there was belief that there was 'ghost' human figure (always with the same clothes) that would go down the liquor isle and soon vanish. And there was no exit he could have left through without being seen. (theory was it was a deceased alcoholic).

Now it's impossible to prove/disprove that particular story of course but the point I want to make is that such stories have a human meaning. If humans were nothing more than physical matter (as western atheism would have it), then we certainly would not expect such events to occur. The forces you talk about would be 'neutral' to any human meaning.

There is still something about consciousness that no western atheistic theory deals well with.

 

[Warren Clark]

I feel there is a problem, with your attempt to explain 'wierd' (paranormal) events in a naturalistic way. I don't know or deny what you have to say about fleeting atoms going from one dimension to another while disappearing and reappearing in thin air. Or even energy moving between dimension (these things are over my pay grade and I'll let others debate those things).

My problem is that the paranormal events have a human meaning. For example, my son-in-law used to work for a party store and among the employees there was belief that there was 'ghost' human figure (always with the same clothes) that would go down the liquor isle and soon vanish. And there was no exit he could have left through without being seen. (theory was it was a deceased alcoholic).

Now it's impossible to prove/disprove that particular story of course but the point I want to make is that such stories have a human meaning. If humans were nothing more than physical matter (as western atheism would have it), then we certainly would not expect such events to occur. The forces you talk about would be 'neutral' to any human meaning.

There is still something about consciousness that no western atheistic theory deals well with.

there is the human consciousness and the subconscious. They work together to create detailed images and thought to align with what we can make sense.
In other words, its our minds doing the work. We see an image and we give it a story and it has meaning.
I wouldn't think for a second that vampires are real, so why would I think ghosts are real?

 

[1robin]

Yes, well I don't know if he said that. But yeah, scientists generally say that was his biggest mistake without doubt. But his theory of it being cyclical still stood as scientists have remodeled the theory.

I do not think he ever considered a cyclical universe. His issue was expanding or static alone. It appears it is expanding and will keep expanding forever unless God exists.

Actually it has just as much merit as any other theory of the big bang and how it started and how the universe will "end".

No it doesn't it might have as much as any other theory based on nothing. In fact the judgement is based on at least as much evidence as it has. What we actually see contradicts anything that allows for oscilation.

Its just one of the theories, and each theory is just as relevant.

Yep it is just as relevant as anything the Greeks invented about atlas holding the Earth up. There is no evidence for either.

Well I can see why it would be shameful. Arrogance and the fall that comes from being arrogant is very painful and can cause serious recalibrating of the way the person's mind works. <-- thats getting into psychology. has some to do with cognitive dissonance.
I can say you were wrong to oppose "God" so strongly.
I don't hate the idea of there being a god. I would love there to be a god.
Sure I hate disease and everything, but because I don't believe that there is a God, there is nothing but the issues at hand to blame.

Well my mother was a true Christian the only one of us that was and she got cancer and suffered from the time I was 12 until she died when I was seventeen. If that had happened to you might have hated God. By the way the years of anger and depression and the drinking and drug use that inspired completely vanished the moment I was saved. That is some of that non scientific truth I have mentioned.

If there is a God, I would expect a logical explanation. I am sure he has one if he exists. (Or it)

Actually with the experience above I belive but can't prove I know why but won't bother you with another subjective claim.

I want it to be noted that I am not debating "against him".
He could easily exist with time being infinite, (which there is nothing to suggest it isnt)

God exists independant of time just as whatever created it necessary must. If you are not debateing against him tell me wher I am wrong here.

There is a vast quantity of evidence that suggests God exists. Revelation, eyewitness testimony, 25,000 historical corroberations with the Bible, over 2000 perfectly fulfilled detailed prophecy (350 for Christ alone), philisophic consistency, no conflict with KNOWN science, suffecient explanitory power, etc...... yet you seem to dismiss the likely existance of God.

There is not one single scrap of data that allows the universe to be infinately old and all evidence suggests it isn't yet you have seemingly adopted that position.

How is bias not involved here.

Well all theories are based on hypothesis (plural) that we were not able to falsify.
Large amounts of facts and data is used to come up with theories.

As long as theories are called theories and treated as such I have no problem.

Evidence does not include heresay.

Actuall witness testimony is called evidence in every single courtroom in the world.

Evidence must be physical and empirical.

Scientific evidence must.

It must be able to be repeated or viewed again.
There is a reason heresay is not allowed into court or science.

Witness testimony and expert testimony is used in every court in the world. The same type and many types a worse type than the Bible contains.

However there is a difference if something was published with scientific recognition.

I do not have faith in the peer review procedure. I have seen many many cases where it was simply a rubberstamp or a payback issue. I trust old and well proven science. If you will review my reply to PolyHedral you can see why I am distrustfull of modern science.

I was just saying that if you could by chance use God as empirical evidence, the evidence would be skewed by the powers of God...
for example, rolling a die would no longer have the same probability.
I honestly don't remember where I was going with that.
I probably just got bored... idk.

Well you have me beat I never knew where that was going. I appraciate the honesty. God is not accessable or determined by empiracal means. His effects may be to a certain extent.

Neither one is possible to know for certain.

I agree to a point. I think the evidence for God being the cause for the universe while being short of proof is far and away more reliable than any oscillating or multiverse model.

Can't prove something that can't be tested.
The assertion that there is a God carries the burden of proof...

Actually if I claimed I know God exists for a fact then proof is necessary. If I say that his existance is likely or highly probable then I only have to demonstrate that. For example prophecy is one method. One example of the over two thousand is that the destruction of Tyre was predicted in detail including names and circumstances by God hundreds of years before it was completed. That if true and examples like it make an undeniable argument for the likely existance of God. Why don't we conclude that obviously science can't solve the issue and doesn't even make God less likely and see if the Bible can help out. Can you defend a lack of belief in the Bible?